Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Historic Monuments

Mr. Raffan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of the Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments initiative on the preservation and promotion of Welsh historic monuments.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): Our consultations have produced a generally very positive response. We are proceeding with the recruitment of a director and other senior staff for the new unit.

Mr. Raffan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that positive statement. Would he care to comment on the recent article in The Guardian concerning his attitude to the heritage of Wales? Will he draw Cadw's attention to Flint castle, which was not considered to be in a fit enough state to be shown to the Queen during her recent visit? Will he also draw Cadw's attention to the highly imaginative recommendations of the excellent John Brown report on how to realise the castle's enormous, although as yet untapped, potential?

Mr. Edwards: The Guardian article was widely and grotesquely inaccurate. I hope to provide a detailed response at some stage. I have paid close attention to the

preservation of the heritage, and that is one reason why we are establishing this new body. We have increased expenditure on ancient monuments from about £1,100,000 to about £1,900,000. That amount does not cover expenditure on historic buildings. I am aware that considerable improvements can be made to Flint castle. I hope that the new Cadw directorate will follow up the Brown committee's recommendations.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Secretary of State consider whether his Department should make a contribution towards the renovation and development of the site at Ty Mawr Wybrnant, which is associated with Bishop Morgan, the translator of the Bible, in view of the fact that the National Trust intends to improve that property and make it available as a museum?

Mr. Edwards: I shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The new body will be equipped to examine and make recommendations on such proposals.

Mr. Mark Robinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his earlier answer. Will he specifically comment on the allegations in The Guardian article in the context of Bulmore and Caerleon?

Mr. Edwards: We have paid great attention to Caerleon, which is a monument of major importance. We are spending money on one of its most important sites. The allegations in The Guardian about the Bulmore site are wildly inaccurate. The photograph in The Guardian of what purports to be a town wall is, in fact, a minor part of a Roman farm building.

Dr. Roger Thomas: What type of monument will the Government set up for the almost 200,000 unemployed people in Wales, including many youngsters?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That matter does not arise out of this question.

Housing Demand

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he now makes of the current levels of demand and the anticipated annual levels over the next 20 years for housing; and whether current and anticipated levels of building and renovation will meet that demand.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Estimates made in 1982 and based on 1979 material suggested a need for 12,000 new units and the rehabilitation of some 6,500 unfit dwellings per annum up to the end of the century. However, more recent population projections indicate a decline in the forecast number of households over the period. This, together with the outstanding success of our renovation grant initiative, will have considerably affected our earlier projection, and a new assessment is in hand. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman when the results are available.

Mr. Anderson: Is the Under-Secretary of State seriously suggesting that the revised population forecasts will make the expected target substantially lower than 20,000? It is clear that, even with the likely revised figure of household formation and demographic change, year on year we shall still fall very short of the demand for housing in Wales. Are not the Government increasingly building up distress and misery for people seeking housing in Wales?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is taking far too gloomy a view of housing. The figures to which we have both referred relate to the period before the grants boom. He must understand the impact of that boom. Some 40,000 repair grants have been approved. We are currently spending £206 million this year on housing. That compares with £96 million and £140 million, respectively, in each of the last two years.

Sir Raymond Gower: While a considerable demand for housing must remain, is not the greatest threat and handicap to providing housing rising inflation, which would cause problems for local authorities and private individuals who seek to own their own homes?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is right. The prime concern of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is to ensure that the progress we have made in reducing inflation is maintained. He took a helpful step towards helping the construction industry when he made changes to stamp duty.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is it not repugnant that housing association starts next year are to be slashed by 33 per cent. — about 1,650 starts? Does that not make a mockery of the capability and capacity of housing associations to provide 6,000 houses a year? Does the Minister know that the Building Employers Confederation in Wales has denounced the position and pointed out that VAT on building will lead not just to less building but to many redundancies in the building trade?

Mr. Roberts: I have already referred to the changes in stamp duty, which are of considerable help to the construction industry. The £41·5 million to be spent next year by the Housing Corporation must be related to £127 million allocated to local authorities. That, together with their capital receipts, will mean a total spend of about £150 million. In addition, we are spending £13·5 million through urban development grants. That will result in priming six private sector schemes involving the building of 563 houses.

Job Creation

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons who have been employed by the

Manpower Services Commission in Wales during the last 12 months for which figures are available on job creation and youth training schemes subsequently secured permanent, full-time employment; and what proportion this represents of the total number of persons who were employed on such schemes during this period.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. John Stradling Thomas): I regret that the information is not available as yet. The Manpower Services Commission will be undertaking work this year to provide information about placement into jobs in respect of the youth training scheme and the community programme.

Mr. Wigley: Is it not amazing that, with half the year gone for many school leavers who were on these temporary schemes last summer, the Government still have no information as to how placements are going? How can they monitor the success of these schemes without such information? Does the Minister accept that there are over 30,000 young people on temporary schemes provided by the Manpower Services Commission in Wales? When those schemes come to an end, there are no prospects other than the dole for a large proportion of those young people. In those circumstances, is it not disgraceful that the number of places on community schemes provided for north Wales is to be reduced by a substantial proportion between 1984 and 1986?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I must remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that the youth training scheme is new and in its first year. It is not possible for the Manpower Services Commission to monitor it until the results of placements arising from the scheme are known. It would merely be inaccurate information. I must point out that people who have had the benefit of these training schemes are in a much better position to obtain meaningful employment than they would be if they had not had the training.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the information that I have just received from his right hon. Friend, that the Colwyn housing survey conducted by the Manpower Services Commission may be extended beyond the 12 months that was originally fixed as the cut-off date, will give enormous satisfaction in my constituency? It provides a useful precedent for adopting a somewhat more flexible attitude towards this 12-month rule.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: That scheme has been approved, and I have noted my hon. Friend's remarks about flexibility in these matters.

Mr. Ron Davies: If the figures were available, would they not be a source of considerable embarrassment for the Government? Does the Minister accept that there is little prospect of young people who are leaving the schemes getting employment? Does that not give the lie to the claim that they are training schemes, and are they not merely attempts to massage the unemployment figures? Does the hon. Gentleman further accept that, in the absence of jobs at the end of the training schemes, his concern should be about the personal development of young people? Finally, does he agree that that makes the cuts in mode B schemes more tragic?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, coming from where he does, is aware, as I am, of concern in Mid and South Glamorgan. In fact, there is


a considerable ceiling there. The relationship between mode A and mode B has been rightly adjusted by the MSC to take account of the characteristics of the area.

Mr. Hooson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the creation of real jobs will be greatly helped by the removal of the national insurance surcharge? Does he further agree that the steps to improve company profitability proposed in the Budget are most important realistic steps in that direction?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I can answer in one word—wholeheartedly.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that many of our young people are not opting for those schemes because the rates of pay are not good enough? In any case, does he appreciate that there is no substitute for a real job? Does he acknowledge that long-term unemployment still haunts the statistics and that our industrial areas are particularly affected? When will the Government take resolute action over the key problem of unemployment in Wales?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: At a time of recession and enormous technical change, we are seeing real action to try to equip youngsters so that they avoid falling into the trap of long-term unemployment. That should meet the hon. Gentleman's points. We are endeavouring, as much as any Government can, to put the matter right.

Industrial Development (Expenditure)

Dr. Marek: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if, in calculating local authority target expenditures, he will disregard expenditure on industrial development in Wales.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: No, Sir.

Dr. Marek: If, on the one hand, the Secretary of State takes pride in the fact that Sharp is coming to Wrexham and if, on the other, he is prepared to rob Wrexham ratepayers by grant holdback because that borough council gives high priority to spending on industrial development, will he tell us whether he regards himself as a hypocrite?

Mr. Edwards: No, but among the greatest attractions for any company choosing an area are the general levels of taxes and rates in that area. The Welsh Office has given substantial help to the project named by the hon. Gentleman and has assisted in securing that project, which will provide about 600 jobs over the next two or three years for the people of Wrexham.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the Secretary of State aware that the recent announcement in the Budget of a reduction in capital allowances to industry will be particularly damaging to small industries in Wales? Will he take steps to mitigate the rigours of rate-capping, on top of those cuts, which will severely affect industry?

Mr. Edwards: I do not agree. I believe that small as well as large companies will benefit from the lower rates of corporation tax that will arise. One of the consequences of the changes in the allowances is that much investment will be brought forward into the next year or two.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that his reply reeks of complacency? Will he not wake up to the terrible unemployment from which

Wales is suffering and how local authorities are trying to cope with the social problems arising from it, besides trying to attract new industry? Does he agree that the last thing that the local authorities need at this difficult time is rate-capping?

Mr. Edwards: I hope that the local authorities will not put themselves into a position where the rates have to be capped.

Derelict Land Schemes

Mr. Rowlands: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what estimates he has of the number of new derelict land schemes to be started in Wales in 1984–85.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The Welsh Development Agency's estimates for 1984–85 include provision of;£6·5 million for derelict land clearance. £2 million is being held in reserve under the provisions for land and buildings and site preparation in connection with new industrial projects and other demands. This will allow existing contracts to be fulfilled. The number of new starts will depend on the level of resources that become available. If the south Cardiff project is approved for urban development grant, up to £2 million may be spent on land reclamation there.

Mr. Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman's statement is of profound concern to those of us who represent valley communities because he has diverted to the south Glamorgan scheme £2 million that would have been put into the land reclamation programmes in our valley communities? Is he aware that under those proposals it would appear that not one new contract for land reclamation in the valley communities will be signed and, therefore, something that is vital to the attraction of our area will be taken away from us?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The Welsh Development Agency had been planning to spend up to £2 million on the Cardiff site. Because I thought it sensible that the provision should be made under one heading, I transferred that money to urban development grant, but it was money that the WDA would otherwise have had to commit and was planning to commit in that area anyway.

Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Secretary of State not understand the anger at his decision in some of the valley communities? Is it not wrong to make cuts in colliery closure areas? Is he aware that in Blaenau Gwent, which I visited last Thursday, there are some magnificent examples of land reclamation by the Conservative and previous Labour Governments? Does he agree that we need far more rather than the petty cuts in which he is indulging?

Mr. Edwards: Expenditure on derelict land clearance has been about £10 million a year, and there is scope for expenditure at about that level in the coming year. It is precisely because there is uncertainty about what is needed in respect of colliery closures that £2 million has been put into reserve, so that the WDA can decide on its plans in the light of the demand that falls on it.

Voluntary Social Service Provision

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total spent by his Department in the last financial year on support for voluntary sector social service provision.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: During 1982–83, the Welsh Office gave grants totalling £2·2 million in support for voluntary sector social service provision.

Mr. Thomas: Will the Minister confirm that funding for opportunities for volunteering in Wales has been reduced from £250,000 in the first year to £90,000 in the second year and that it should be the English equivalent of £300,000 in the corning year, but it has not yet been announced despite the fact that funding for England and Scotland was announced at the end of last year?

Mr. Roberts: I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong somewhere, especially as only last week we announced that £110,000 was to be made available for that scheme in 1984–85.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of unemployed in Wales at the last available date; and if he will give details of the number of males, females and the number of long-term unemployed together with the corresponding figures for May 1979.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 9 February 1984, unemployed claimants in Wales, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, totalled 163,500, or 117,600 males and 45,900 females. In May 1979, the estimated figures were 78,200, 56,700 and 21,500, respectively. In January 1984 the number of claimants unemployed for over 52 weeks totalled 67,719. Comparable figures for May 1979 are not available.

Mr. Powell: I should not like to call the Secretary of State a hypocrite as that would not be allowed in the Chamber, but I can think what I like. I have listened for five years during every Welsh Question Time to the Secretary of State telling us of increases in unemployment. Is he aware that it is high time that he stood up in the Cabinet and demanded action from the Government to safeguard some of the jobs in Wales? Is he further aware that, if the St. John's colliery at Maesteg is closed, unemployment in the Maesteg area will be 43 per cent.? What action will he take to remedy that?

Mr. Edwards: What I know is hypocrisy are the actions of the Labour Government who bewailed unemployment but put a wicked tax on jobs and thereby increased unemployment. We have abolished that tax, thus making about £45 million more available to Welsh industry this year.

Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the unemployment figures would be much worse if the nightmare occurred and the Labour party had the chance to implement its alternative economic strategy — a strategy than many economists agree would achieve what had hitherto been thought impossible: soaring interest rates, soaring unemployment, soaring inflation and soaring inflation at one and the same time?

Mr. Edwards: That would produce the same kind of disasters that the Labour Government produced—driving away investment and forcing up inflation and unemployment again.

Mr. Foot: Do the shameful figures that the Secretary of State has been forced to announce to the House show that unemployment is worse now than it was in 1979, and that under him the figures for Wales are far worse than any that Wales has had to contend with since the end of the war? Will he take the first immediate step to deal with the problem by increasing the amount that the Welsh Development Agency can have at its disposal to afford extra industrial development as well as extra expenditure on derelict land clearance? If he wishes to do something concrete immediately to deal with these figures, that is the answer.

Mr. Edwards: More shameful is that the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government who imposed this wicked tax on jobs—[Interruption.]—and helped to force up unemployment to its present level. By the removal of that tax this year, we have injected probably £45 million back into Welsh industry for the creation of new jobs.

Mr. Grist: Would my right hon. Friend care to estimate how many jobs will be saved, created or destroyed by those Labour Members who are supporting the coalminers' strike?

Mr. Edwards: The strike will be gravely damaging to the industry and must have its effect on the number of jobs that it can provide in future.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition are getting sick and tired of him coming to the House and either putting the blame on the previous Labour Government or saying that things will work out in future? Does he not realise that other small countries have succeeded in keeping unemployment down but that this Government have refused to take the necessary steps, because they prefer to cut expenditure on housing in order to give money to the rich taxpayers of south-east England?

Mr. Edwards: We have built a record number of factories in Wales, got a record number of factory allocations and attracted a record amount of new inward investment from overseas.

Mr. Barry Jones: These evasive replies will not do. Is not the Secretary of State ashamed that, in a recent Common Market study, industrial south-east Wales is classified in the least prosperous group of Europe's 131 regions? In the five years of the Conservative Government, Wales has been on the receiving end of a social and economic battering not experienced since the 1930s. When can the people of Wales expect the right hon. Gentleman to introduce some decent, honourable policies to end the mass unemployment for which he personally is responsible?

Mr. Edwards: The survey to which the hon. Gentleman refers covered the period during which he was in office and the Labour party was in power.

Mr. Speaker: Order. One of the features of Welsh questions has always been the good-natured exchanges across the Chamber. I hope that we can keep it that way. I remind the House that only one supplementary question should be asked at a time.

Enveloping Schemes

Mr. Mark Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is satisfied with the progress of enveloping schemes for houses in Wales.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: A start has been made. Four enveloping schemes, involving 886 houses, have now been approved and I expect to announce at least two more before the summer. I hope that each of the remaining nine authorities which received supplements for enveloping within their 1984–85 housing allocations will also come forward with projects during the course of the year.

Mr. Robinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that £500,000 has already been made available to the Newport borough council for the Witham/Feering scheme in Newport? Can my hon. Friend confirm that an additional £250,000 will be made available to Newport borough council?

Mr. Roberts: I can confirm that Newport has already been notified of an additional £250,000 for this enveloping scheme.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Did the Minister notice the recent report on housing in Mid-Glamorgan, where death rates are reckoned to be 64 per cent. higher than the national average owing to the deplorable housing there? Does he not feel that a boost for the construction industry is vital rather than to put VAT on home improvement work, which was such a deplorable feature of the recent Budget?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to attribute the statistics he mentioned simply to housing in Mid-Glamorgan. There are, of course, many deficiencies in the area of that authority and many things that we accept should be put right.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales are unemployed; how many were unemployed in May 1979; and by what percentage unemployment has increased since May 1979.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 9 February 1984, unemployed claimants in Wales, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, totalled 163,500 compared with an estimate of 78,200 in May 1979, an increase of 109·1 per cent.

Mr. Jones: Those figures are very serious and the right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of them, bearing in mind the human misery that they represent. As nearly 1,000 people are jobless in Connah's Quay in Deeside, out of a total of 8,000 jobless on Deeside, will he confirm that when the pulp paper mill at Shotton comes on stream local labour will be recruited? What news does the right hon. Gentleman have of the Nissan project? Does he expect a decision by the end of this month? Does he join me in praising the Clwyd county authority and its chief executive for the good job that they have done?

Mr. Edwards: United Paper Mills will provide about 270 jobs. That is one of a long series of new projects which will provide substantial employment in the area and which I am sure will be welcome. A decision from the Nissan company is expected within the next few weeks. The hon. Gentleman will know that not only has the Clwyd county council done good work but there has been a united effort to present the attractions of the site by my Department, the

Welsh Development Agency and everyone concerned. It is a matter for congratulation that it is one of the final short-listed sites, which says a great deal for the reputation and qualities of the area. Of course, the decision remains with the company.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Secretary of State tell us what representations he made to the Foreign Secretary about the devastating effect on employment in Wales of the recent proposals about dairy farming, bearing in mind that 50 people have already been made redundant at Fulwood and Bland at Ellesmere in Shropshire as a result of those proposals?

Mr. Edwards: The problems facing the community go wider than the very real problems of the dairy industry. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is at a meeting in Brussels at this very moment to carry these decisions forward, I cannot add to the full statement that was made during the debate in this House last Thursday.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that anxiety about unemployment is quite as strong on the Government Benches as anywhere else? Is it not a fact that a long period of world recession is now being followed by a period in which there are at least some hopeful signs, and should it not now be our ambition to sell the advantages of Wales to industry and not bemoan the past?

Mr. Edwards: The fact that during the past year we have attracted well over 20 per cent. of the total inward investment coming to the United Kingdom is evidence that foreign companies, at least, understand the remarkable changes that are taking place, even if Opposition Members do not.

Mr. Anderson: Did the Secretary of State see the table in The Times last Friday on comparative regional GDP per head, which showed that Wales is now bottom of the regional wealth league in the country — with the exception, of course, of Northern Ireland? Will he bear in mind those awful figures in forming his employment and social policies?

Mr. Edwards: I did not see the figures. It is precisely because we realise the problems that have been inherited over several generations in Wales that we have been taking such energetic action to improve the infrastructure, construct the factories that are needed and produce record training programmes, so that we have a skilled work force that is ready to exploit the opportunities that exist.

Mr. Mark Robinson: In contrast to the Opposition, my right hon. Friend has often mentioned the new jobs that are being created in Wales. Will he say how many jobs would have been lost in Wales if the Labour party's policy of withdrawal from the Common Market had been put into effect?

Mr. Edwards: What I do know is that the considerable number of major new inward investment projects that we have obtained, of which Sharp is the most recent, could not, and would not, have been obtained if we had been outside the Community.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question that I put to him before, which he was apparently unwilling to answer? Does he not agree that the most immediate way in which he could help to deal with


these terrible figures would be to increase the amount of money allocated to the Welsh Development Agency? Will he take urgent steps to ensure that that happens?

Mr. Edwards: No, Sir. I do not agree that that is the most important way. The most important way is to continue the economic measures that will assist the general industrial recovery that is taking place and to reduce the tax and other financial burdens that the Government of which he was a member loaded on to the back of Welsh industry.

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the figure for youth unemployment in Wales at the latest available date.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 9 February 1984 there were 5,847 unemployed school leaver claimants in Wales.

Mr. Hughes: When will the Secretary of State come to realise that our young people are now living in a land of no hope because the Government's monetarist policies have killed off so many jobs in Wales? Whereas the Budget sent the Stock Exchange through the roof, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that by this time next year unemployment both in Wales and in the country as a whole will be even higher than today?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman should welcome the fact that such a high proportion of school leavers who left school last year have found employment or a place on one of the special schemes. He should also welcome the fact that the figures this February are substantially lower than at the same time last year.

Coal Industry (South Wales)

Mr. Coleman: asked the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he intends meeting the regional director of the National Coal Board in South Wales to discuss the level of new investment in the coal industry in South Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I and my Department have regular contact with the director about a wide range of aspects of the coal industry in South Wales, but I have no plans at the present time for a meeting with him to discuss investment.

Mr. Coleman: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the solution to the present problems in the mining industry in South Wales would be a positive commitment on investment by the NCB and the Government? In view of that need, will he take up with Mr. Philip Weeks his remarks published in the new Neath Independent newspaper that he could not confirm investment in the Glyn Castle project, which is seen by the NUM as an important development in respect of the anthracite area, which is threatened with further pit closures? Will he have another meeting with him and talk about that?

Mr. Edwards: Clearly, investment decisions are for the board to take. At present it is unlikely that the board will be able to give those decisions the priority that perhaps they should have. The sooner people get back to work, the sooner we can get on with planning and producing future investment.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a sad day for the coal industry in South Wales? With the result of the voting of South Wales miners'

lodges, good pits being picketed out by the actions of a militant minority, and the posters that we see around, does he agree that we cannot help but feel sympathy with the miners in wishing them victory in their battle against Arthur Scargill?

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that anyone who wishes to go to work should be allowed to and should not be impeded by others.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Would it not be advantageous to the coal industry in Wales if we had a common energy policy within the EEC?

Mr. Edwards: That does not arise from this question.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is it not true that of the 48 hi-tech faces in the United Kingdom only one exists in South Wales? Why is the right hon. Gentleman so lukewarm and faint-hearted about the need for new anthracite and coking coal pits in South Wales?

Mr. Edwards: Because those are decisions that should rightly be taken by the NCB.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Ron Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest available figures for adult unemployment in Mid-Glamorgan.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 9 February 1984 adult unemployment claimants in Mid-Glamorgan totalled 32,444.

Mr. Davies: Does the Secretary of State accept that those figures are truly appalling? Does he recognise that employment opportunities in Mid-Glamorgan on many occasions rest on developments in South Glamorgan? In the light of the recent announcement that Nissan will not be coming to South Wales, does he recognise that the shortfall of £4 million, in South Wales, because of the lack of special development area status, was a major factor in that decision? Does he further accept that the White Paper, which will reduce regional aid in scope and nature in South Wales, will have long-term detrimental effects on inward investment?

Mr. Edwards: I do not agree that that was the major factor which influenced Nissan's decision. There were problems over the South Wales sites. Consultations on the future of regional policy are under way and no decisions have been taken about the extent or scale of aid to South Wales in future.

Schools (Expenditure)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how much was spent per pupil in primary schools in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available.

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Wales by how much expenditure, in constant prices, per school pupil is forecast to have risen in 1983–84 compared with 1978–79 at (a) primary school level, and (b) secondary school level in Wales.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas: The provisional figure for expenditure per primary pupil in 1982–83 is £714. It is estimated that expenditure per primary and secondary pupil between 1978–79 and 1983–84 will have increased


by 10 and 6 per cent. respectively after appropriate allowance is made for pay and price changes as they affect local authority expenditure.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend think that those increases in expenditure have resulted in an improvement in education in Welsh schools?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: Yes. My hon. Friend is right, by implication. The figures make nonsense of the alarmist claims of Opposition Members that we have made heavy cuts in expenditure on schools.

Mr. Grist: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disappointing that, despite all the money that has been spent on education since the war, so many people are wholly or functionally illiterate? Will he comment on what I said in the recent Welsh debate about low teacher expectation in this regard?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: Money, like the pupil-teacher ratio, is only one of the criteria involved. I take the point made by my hon. Friend. I know of his concern in these matters and I share it, because under-achievement is one of the problems with which we have to grapple.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister of State come off the fence for a change and acknowledge the importance to the community of village schools in Wales? Will he stop hiding behind the county councils whenever he is asked about village schools?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I never hide behind the county councils. I think that the hon. Gentleman meant to refer to local education authorities. They have to make many difficult decisions and I would ask them to keep thriving village schools whenever possible, but authorities have to take into account the need for economies and the best use of resources. The ultimate decisions will always be based on the educational advantage for the children concerned.

A55 (Dual Carriageway)

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the present estimated date for completion of the dualling of the A55 road from the English border to Bangor.

Mr. John Stradling Thomas: The provisional programme envisages the substantial completion of the A55 improvement by the end of the decade. This is subject, of course, to satisfactory progress with statutory procedures and engineering design.

Sir Anthony Meyer: May I take it from that reply that there is no substance in reports from the CBI that serious delays have crept in on two sections on the road?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I do not underestimate the difficult engineering problems of sections of the overall plan. But serious delays? I would say no.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister confirm that the date given by his predecessor, Mr. Michael Roberts, was mid-1987? Will he also confirm that money has been sucked into the scheme from other trunk road schemes in north Wales, resulting in projects such as the Felinheli bypass being left in abeyance indefinitely, so that a severe traffic problem has arisen in that village?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I do not underestimate the difficulties. But serious slippage? I would say no. The allocation of resources is always hard, particularly when difficult engineering problems are involved.

Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend give the estimated starting and completion dates for two stretches of the A55—the proposed Northop and Holywell bypasses?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I think that the correct answer is late 1984, but I had better write to my hon. Friend about the details of those schemes.

Mr. Barry Jones: As one of the Minister of State's predecessors, I may be able to help him. I think that that answer was wrong. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me when the Hawarden bypass will be completed—I think that it should be this year—how much it will cost and how long it is? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when the bypass is opened the industrial attraction of the area will be greatly enhanced?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I would agree on the latter point. On the details, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his helpful suggestion, but I shall write to him, too.

Manpower Reductions

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in reducing the staff of the Welsh Office since May 1979; and how much reduction has been achieved, both absolutely and in percentage terms, in numbers in Welsh local government over the same period.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Between April 1979 and March 1984, the number of Welsh Office staff has been reduced from 2,613 to 2,185, a reduction of 16·3 per cent. This compares with a fall of 4·8 per cent. in the local government sector, where manpower, excluding the law and order services, has declined, in full-time equivalent terms, from about 119,800 in June 1979 to about 114,000 at December 1983, the latest date for which information is available.

Mr. Hooson: While I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his very good progress with the Welsh Office, is it not time to call a conference with the Association of Welsh Authorities to review the very disappointing progress on its side of the picture?

Mr. Edwards: I do not think that it is necessary to call a special conference, because I discuss this matter with the Welsh local authorities at my regular meetings with them. They must understand that, if they had been able to make even quite modest reductions over and above what has been achieved, there would be substantially lower rate burdens than there now are.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Redundant Churches

Sir David Price: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is the Church Commissioners' attitude towards the principle of the sharing of the use of redundant churches with other Christian denominations

The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Representing Church Commissioners (Sir William van Straubenzee): The commissioners regard the appropriation of a redundant Anglican church for use for worship by another Christian denomination as the most suitable alternative use. Since the pastoral measure came into operation in 1969, the future of 68 redundant churches has been settled in this way.

Sir David Price: I thank my hon. Friend for that admirable reply. It adds further to the ecumenical spirit that pervades the Christian Church in the country and, I hope, in the House.

Clergymen's Widows

Mr. Greenway: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what is paid in pensions and emoluments to widows of clergymen by the Church Commissioners.

Sir William van Straubenzee: The clergy pensions scheme, which is non-contributory, provides that a widow receives half the pension entitlement of her husband. In the case of full service, this comes to £1,925 a year from 1 April 1984. She will also be eligible for an additional augmentation grant if her total income is below £3,350 a year.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that these widows also need help with housing, and will he consider whether it is possible to give that help? Does he agree that they give devoted, unpaid help in parishes, as hon. Members' wives give in constituencies? Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether the bishops have plans for further excommunications, such as the one we witnessed recently?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the question.

Sir William van Straubenzee: I shall, therefore, deal only with the first half of the question. Yes, Sir, the devoted work of wives of the clergy is widely recognised and deeply appreciated in the Church. The Church intends progressively to improve housing and pension provisions for them. That is why we must take such care of our assets, because money for this worthy cause comes only from them.

Mr. Frank Field: Do not the divorced wives of clergy have a moral right to share in retirement and widows' pensions?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken a keen interest in that point. He gave helpful evidence to an inquiry on the matter headed by the Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich. Perhaps he will allow me to await the outcome of the inquiry before giving him an answer.

Mr. Ryman: Will the hon. Gentleman refrain from acting like a ridiculous Trollope figure from "Barchester Towers" and consider seriously the hardships suffered by the widows of the clergy? Does he understand that they are in an exceptionally difficult position, because on the death of the clergyman they lose not only a husband but a home, and the present pension arrangements are wholly inadequate?

Sir William van Straubenzee: I would be sorry if complacency were read into my reply to the second half of the question. The Church is conscious of the point that

the hon. Gentleman makes, which is why year by year we seek to improve the provisions. In answer to the first half of his question, I will try not to ape the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Arts Council

Mr. Fisher: asked the Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts whether the Minister for the Arts has any plans for altering the structure of the Arts Council of Great Britain and its relationship with regional arts associations.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): My noble Friend awaits with interest the views of the Arts Council following its review of arts development strategy, which will no doubt encompass questions of structure.

Mr. Fisher: On the question of the regional arts associations, will the Under-Secretary take the opportunity now to deny rumours in the press this weekend that the price for improving the financial position of the regions, which he knows that I support, will be the removal of grant from the Royal Court, the Riverside studios, the Hayward gallery and the Arts Council's literary department? Does he not agree that such a price would be totally unacceptable and an act of artistic vandalism?

Mr. Waldegrave: The report has not been received yet, so it would be premature to comment on rumours. In so far as the Arts Council, within a budget which, over the years, has increased, is trying to find room to fund new developments, it must be right that it should look at diminishing resources for some other parts of its empire. This seems to me inevitable.

Sir David Price: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when the metropolitan counties cease to exist, most of the current sponsorship role of the metropolitan counties will be taken over by the metropolitan districts, but there will be a residual and enhanced role for regional arts associations?

Mr. Waldegrave: My noble Friend has made it clear that he believes that there is a role for the Arts Council and the regional arts associations in taking some of the strain, but it is obviously very important for the district councils to play a full role, and some of them have made it clear that they are willing to do so.

Mr. Freud: On that point, does the Minister feel that regional arts associations are vested with sufficient power to do the work which will doubtless be theirs after the abolition?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is exactly at that kind of question that the Arts Council review is looking, as I understand it. We have not yet received the report, but obviously, if there is an enhanced role, the whole structure must be looked at.

Mr. Jessel: On the question of the balance between the regions and London, will my hon. Friend remind the Arts Council that the live arts require audiences, that audiences require population catchment areas from which to draw, and so the arts naturally tend to be centred on large centres of population, in particular on very large cities, and that any attempt to militate against that will be damaging to the arts?

Mr. Waldegrave: I have noticed, since I have been carrying out the function of arts spokesman, that there is strong pressure on the regions. This is part of the circle that the chairman of the Arts Council has to square. One has to set against what my hon. Friend has said, which is true, the fact that the capital has very great resources of its own.

Mr. Faulds: As it is now crystal clear that the arts throughout Great Britain are facing potential disaster, would it not be advisable for the Government to look again at their negative and shallow response to the report of the Committee on Education, Science and Arts entitled "Public and Private Funding of the Arts", which called for substantial increases in the level of public spending on the arts, long-tenn planning of the arts development, and for a Minister for the Arts with much wider responsibilities, greater power and greater knowledge than the present one?

Mr. Waldegrave: I refute the allegation that the arts are facing disaster. There is no question of that. The arts are facing change in some respects, but the handling of that change will be such as to avoid disaster.

Mr. Stanbrook: Would not the Arts Council have much more money to spend on regional arts if it moved out of its luxurious and expensive premises in Piccadilly?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is a matter for the Arts Council. I am sure that it pays great attention to its overhead costs.

Mr. Buchan: If the Minister thinks that the arts are not in crisis, he is about the only person in Britain who does. The Arts Council, the local authorities, the regional associations and Lord Goodman recognise the desperate position of the arts. Is not the reason for that the Government's function of cutting back on arts expenditure, with the exception of opera—which means that the rest receive grants that are not in line with inflation—and their twofold attack on local authorities through abolition or rate-capping? In that context, how can we save the arts?

Mr. Waldegrave: In the 20 or so years that I have taken an interest in politics the message has always been the same, although resources have steadily increased. A rather good article was featured in The Guardian last week which showed how increases in expenditure on the arts since the war have done nothing to diminish the cries of crisis. We must moderate our language.

Local Government Reform

Mr. Tony Banks: asked the Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts, in the event of abolition of the Greater London Council what level of control the Minister for the Arts will exercise over existing and future developments of arts facilities on the south bank.

Mr. Waldegrave: My noble Friend is currently considering this and other matters in the light of the many views and suggestions put to him during the consultation period.

Mr. Banks: Will the Under-Secretary explain how the south bank can be run along commercially viable lines—the words used in the consultative document—in the light of the suggested change by the Arts Council in

relation to the Hayward gallery? What will happen to the Hayward gallery, which is an integral part of the south bank?

Mr. Waldegrave: The consultation paper made it quite clear that there may be a role for the Arts Council in funding functions on the south bank.

Mr. Montgomery: How much longer will we have to wait for a statement on the Government's response to the consultative paper, in the event of the GLC and the metropolitan counties being abolished?

Mr. Waldegrave: I sympathise with my hon. Friend. The uncertainties create problems for the arts and must be diminished as soon as possible. I shall bring my noble Friend's attention to the urgency of the matter.

Support Incentives

Mr. Chapman: asked the Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts if the Minister for the Arts is satisfied with the Government incentives available to encourage individuals and companies to support the arts.

Mr. Waldegrave: Substantial incentives, in the form of tax reliefs, already exist, but my noble Friend is always looking for new ways of encouraging a higher level of business sponsorship and private support for the arts.

Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that business sponsorship for the arts has increased and that last year it was about £13·5 million? Does he accept that that is only at about an eighth of the level of Government funding via the Arts Council? If my hon. Friend thinks that the tax incentives are sufficient, will he and his colleagues try to encourage a greater take-up by companies and individuals?

Mr. Waldegrave: I accept what my hon. Friend says. My noble Friend the Minister for the Arts tries to do what he can. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken various measures to cut income and capital tax rates. We believe in the freedom of individuals to do valuable things with their money, including sponsorship of the arts. I hope that people will respond.

Mr. Flannery: Is the Under-Secretary aware that, in addition to the report by the Select Committee, this week the Committee is considering an urgent report as a result of the hundreds of representations from the arts world? Is the Minister aware that his complacent attitude to money is worrying the whole arts world? His attitude is that all the worries are unfounded and that everything will go well.

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not accept that. All will be well only in so far as intelligent and sensible decisions are taken. Obviously, any change in the status quo is worrying for those who depend upon it. It is not impossible to see the arts through a period of transition if the right decisions are taken.

Mr. Cormack: If my hon. Friend is really looking for new ideas, will he draw the Minister's attention to the Select Committee report to which reference has already been made? Is he aware that plenty of excellent new ideas are endorsed unanimously by the members of that Select Committee but that the Government's reply is far short of perfection?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am aware that the Government's response did not go as far as my hon. Friend would have


liked. However, I have no doubt that many of the recommendations will remain on the table for discussion in the years ahead.

Mr. Dalyell: How do the Government see the financial future of the Royal Court theatre?

Mr. Waldegrave: The funding of the Royal Court theatre by the Arts Council must be a matter for the council. If Ministers are to answer from the Dispatch Box for the arm's length funding of the council, the principle of arts funding is at an end.

Mr. Buchan: If the present proposals are proceeded with and the Royal Court theatre loses its national subsidy and the Tory borough of Kensington and Chelsea ceases to fund it, the national theatre of the alternative, the new, the potential, may be condemned. Surely the Minister will at least comment upon that.

Mr. Waldegrave: It would be wrong of me to answer directly for the decisions of the Arts Council. It would be even sillier of me to answer for direct decisions of the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you be good enough to ensure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment with responsibilities for the arts appears on the Order Paper with his correct designation? He is the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and to misdescribe him in the way that appears on the Order Paper is to suggest that civil servants are now answering from the Dispatch Box. We should ensure that my hon. Friend's correct title appears on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: I take note of that perceptive remark.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not ask you to rule on this matter, because I have not had an opportunity of giving you notice, but I ask you to consider it. Many of us have had the experience of having parliamentary questions, or intended parliamentary questions, refused at the Table because they are based on hypothesis and not fact. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to question No. 28 to the parliamentary Under-Secretary of State. Although I confidently expect Government policy towards the Greater London Council to be implemented by Parliament, it is a hypothetical question in that the abolition of the GLC is not a fact. It is, therefore, a hypothetical question.

Mr. Speaker: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the question reads:
in the event of abolition of the Greater London Council".
I accept that that event has not yet taken place. However, it is within the knowledge of the House that the matter is certainly in prospect. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Territorial Army (Expansion)

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the Territorial Army.
The House will recall the Government's commitment to enhance our volunteer reserve forces. Two years ago my predecessor announced improvements in our support to the Territorial Army and our plans to expand it to 86,000 by 1990. I am now able to announce the second and more ambitious phase of these plans.
In considering where and how to enhance the Territorial Army, we have been guided by a number of principles. Most important is the operational requirement both in the European theatre and in home defence. We have also been conscious of recruiting potential, the availability of suitable facilities and, in particular, the importance of the regimental traditions and local affiliations.
Wherever appropriate, we have used the expansion plans to restructure and reorganise the Territorial Army infantry units. This will improve command and control, and reduce their geographical spread, which has long been a matter of concern.
Although final details remain to be decided, I can give the House an outline of our plans. We propose to raise six new infantry battalions: in north Yorkshire and Cleveland; Yorkshire; greater Manchester and Cheshire; Devon and Cornwall; Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire; and London. We intend to raise a new armoured reconnaissance squadron in the Newcastle area. A new air defence regiment will be formed in Scotland and a further battery added to each of the three existing regiments. All will be equipped with the Javelin guided missile.
The House may be particularly interested to learn that we plan to form for the first time a Territorial Army Air Corps Squadron, equipped with Scout helicopters. We shall also form new logistic and support units, including an ordnance unit in Bristol, a medical unit in Cambridge and a transport squadron in Wales.
We plan also to enhance the Territorial Army's equipment. The number of guns in field artillery regiments will be increased; the infantry will receive, along with its regular counterparts, the new anti-tank weapon LAW 80 and new small arms. TA battalions in the 2nd Infantry Division will be equipped with more mortars.
Our plans are to be implemented from 1986 onwards. They are set out in greater detail in an open Government document published today, which I have placed in the Vote Office.
These measures will significantly increase our conventional capability both in the United Kingdom and in Germany. They will strengthen the credibility of NATO's conventional deterrence. But for successful expansion the Territorial Army needs to recruit and retain its manpower. We are considering practical measures to assist in this, and have launched a major drive to increase employer support. I hope that the House will join me in encouraging the employers of reserve soldiers to help and support them where they can.
The Territorial Army provides over 25 per cent. of the Army's mobilised strength at a cost of only 4·5 per cent. of the Army budget. The House will wish me to pay tribute to those who are already serving members of our volunteer reserves, not only in the Territorial Army but in the Royal


Naval Reserve, the Royal Marine Reserve, and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. These men and women devote much of their spare time to valuable service in the defence of our country. Their dedication deserves the full support of this House and of the community at large. They are a symbol of the British people's commitment to NATO defence.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that statement and I join him in the well-merited tribute that he paid to the reserve forces and to the Territorial Army. Statements from the Ministry of Defence are coming thick and fast almost every Monday. The more cynical among us might say that a secondary purpose was perhaps to create a company of "Michael's own territorials" behind the right hon. Gentleman, ready for the day when the Prime Minister slips on that banana skin — [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] — but to say that would be uncharitable.
I have three questions for the right hon. Gentleman. First, what will be the annual cost of the plans that he has announced and what will be the total cost by 1990 at today's prices? Secondly, what response has he received so far from employers? Is it not a fact that their enthusiasm has not been as great as he had hoped? Thirdly, while we welcome any steps to strengthen our conventional defences, why does the right hon. Gentleman not use his Monday spot to make a statement about the £2 billion increase in Trident which has caused far greater damage to our conventional defences than any benefit we might get from his statement today?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the members of our territorial services. The annual cost will be about £30 million and the capital cost about £140 million. If he aggregates those figures he will have the answer to his question.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to ask about the response of employers, because obviously they have a prior preoccupation to ensure that the people working for their companies are devoted full time to the success of those companies in what are difficult trading conditions, and I hope that the enthusiasm of large numbers of them will be reflected even more widely.
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question about why I did not announce the Trident additional costs in a Monday statement is that I chose to do so when the Department was top of the list for questions and when there were more Labour Members in the House than there are now.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his statement today will be warmly welcomed by all those who care about the defence of our country? The last Labour Government wantonly destroyed the headquarters of 44 Parachute Brigade. Will my right hon. Friend give consideration in the coming months to reforming a small and inexpensive headquarters which would be able to co-ordinate the work of the excellent units that operate at present as individual parachute units?

Mr. Heseltine: I know of my hon. Friend's deep concern about this. Although I cannot undertake to give a favourable answer, I am sympathetic to the general thrust of his argument. Perhaps he will study the White Paper, which I hope will expand on some of these matters.

Dr. David Owen: As the Government are planning for only 0·5 per cent. real increase in defence expenditure from 1986, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that measures of the kind that he announced today will be vital to improve our conventional defence forces? I therefore welcome the six infantry battalions, especially the one for Devon and Cornwall, and the decision to equip them with anti-tank missiles.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the youth training scheme and the extraordinary fact that only 670 people were accepted although there were 1,900 vacancies and 3,000 applications and many people hoped that the scheme would appeal to young people? Are not the conditions for entry too strict in insisting on the same requirements as for Regulars? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his broad welcome for my statement. He asked about the 0·5 per cent. increase—it is, in fact, rather more—implied in the defence expenditure figure published for 1986. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the forthcoming White Paper, in which I shall have a good deal more to say about this important matter.
The youth training scheme is not central to my statement today, but I am considering that aspect. I am conscious that those accepted into the armed services have to train alongside Regular entrants and it is important not to get the balance wrong. It is a difficult issue and I am concerned about it.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but is he aware that there is great concern in the Territorial Army about the effect of TA membership on unemployment benefit? Given the importance of the TA role, to which he referred earlier, could not such service be exempted?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and I hope that he will be able to say something further about this in the next few days.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I welcome the statement, but what was the point in it, when I read most of it in the newspaper yesterday? Was that a leak or a brief?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to know that the right hon. Gentleman shares our concern about the prevailing practice of leaking documents. If it helps, perhaps I may tell him that it was probably neither a leak nor a brief, but it was more a leak than a brief.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is not this a most welcome statement of cost-effective policy? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it costs the taxpayer considerably less to train a Territorial soldier to high efficiency than to a train a Regular?

Mr. Heseltine: I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's view. He is perfectly correct, but his conclusion should not be taken a stage further. The valuable contribution of the Territorial service is based on the high degree of professionalism of the Regular forces, which are the essential core of our defence effort.

Mr. David Young: I pay tribute to the people who give up their time to this exercise, but


will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Territorial Army will not be used by the Department in a political or semi-political capacity, as the police have been used by his colleagues at the Home Office? May we have an assurance that this is not a back-door method of bringing in not Regular forces but forces which can be commanded by various Departments to enforce political dogma?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that the whole House will reject the assumption that the maintenance of law and order is the assertion of political dogma.

Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn): Is my right hon. Friend aware that any expansion of the Territorial Army is greatly to be welcomed by the House and the country as a whole and that I especially welcome the extra availability of field artillery pieces to the Territorial Army? Is he further aware, however, that there is concern in the Territorial Army about whether money is being spent on administration or on genuine expansion of the number of places available? Is he satisfied that his announcement today paid sufficient regard to expansion of existing units so as to cut down on extra administration costs, rather than creating new ones?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has touched on an important issue, which affects not only the Territorial Army but the whole of the administration of the defence budget. I am determined to see that generally the administration of our defence expenditure is kept to the necessary minimum. One must draw a balance between reinforcing existing units and going to other areas where the recruitment opportunities might be better. The document I have published reflects that balance.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did the Secretary of State see the answer given last Monday by the Foreign Office that, whereas Norway spent £5·03 per head, this country spent only 16p per head on supporting the United Nations Children's Fund? How does the right hon. Gentleman justify—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member will seek to relate his question to this matter.

Mr. Dalyell: How does the right hon. Gentleman justify spending more money on the Territorial Army when there are starving kids throughout the world? Is not this matter all about his position in the Conservative party and about Tories playing soldiers? Britain has better uses for its money than to encourage that action.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman would appreciate, if he had listened to my statement as carefully as he normally does, that my action was foreshadowed by my predecessor, Sir John Nott. This cannot be seen in any way as my personal initiative, although I am happy to be proudly associated with it. The House will appreciate that the Government believe it is as necessary to maintain the required levels of defence as to meet the other priorities on social matters, which are as important to us as they are to the hon. Gentleman.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed? As an Army reservist, I ask him how he envisages the operations of the Air Corps. Is he aware that this decision is of particular interest throughout Britain?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Frend. We plan to form a new Territorial AAC squadron equipped with Scout helicopters. They are to be phased out of the regular units, but we believe that they still have a valuable and useful life. The squadron will be based at Netheravon. About 12 helicopters will be available to the squadron. To get the squadron into existence, we shall be recruiting from ex-Army aviation personnel.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State. Does he accept that his statement has special significance because it strengthens the first-line mobility reserves of NATO and therefore acts in an area which is especially weak vis-a-vis the Warsaw pact? In that sense, does the right hon. Gentleman accept also that many Opposition Members will see this statement as providing the steps necessary to move towards a policy of no first use?
Why' will the plans be implemented from 1986 onwards rather than before? Is the reason a deficiency in money, organisation or manpower? What stage have we reached in achieving the target of 86,000 for 1990? Is recruitment up to the necessary level to achieve those targets?

Mr. Heseltine: At present, we have a strength of over 70,000, which is in line with our plans to move forward to a figure of 86,000 by 1990. We must take a slightly longer time scale than the hon. Gentleman and I would like, because it is necessary to build the capital facilities within which the training and various associated activities occur. That process will be getting under way. We already have a no-first-use policy. We will attack nobody.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, especially as it forms part of the Government's commitment to increase the auxiliaries and volunteer reserves of all three services. Does my right hon. Friend intend shortly to form tactical transport Royal Auxiliary Air Force squadrons equipped with helicopters to provide specifically tactical transport for Territorial Army units?

Mr. Heseltine: I am aware of my hon. Friend's deep interest in and knowledge of these matters. I should be grateful if he would bear with me. This matter is still under consideration.

Mr. Tony Banks: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young), I am assuming that this announcement is made in preparation for the social unrest that the Government's policies seem to be bringing about. I should like to ask the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]—when the fifth form opposite quieten down, whether he will give an assurance that, unlike the Norwegian troops on NATO exercises who use live ammunition on live animals, none of the Territorial battalions being formed or retained will be involved in such exercises or be involved in shooting live ammunition into live animals — unless it is into Conservative Members.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In the interests of order and calmness in this place, the hon. Member should not say things like that.

Mr. Heseltine: I shall deal with the serious part of the hon. Member's question. If he would refer to the answer


given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, he would find that my Department has dealt fully with the subject of animals and experiments on animals.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, to ensure that the second phase of expansion is as successful as the first, he will have to pay attention to officer recruitment and retention? The recruitment of men has gone well, but the recruitment of officers at present is difficult. I hope that he will be giving money and attention to that aspect. Will he also ensure that the building of the new drill halls and the improvement of old ones continues, as it is vital?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has a deep knowledge of this subject. As I have explained, the £140 million capital associated with the project is, in part, required for the building of new drill halls. I agree that one has to recruit officers as well as men.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the eastern district is the only one in England for which there are no proposed new units? Is that an implied tribute to the east midlands generally and the city of Leicester in particular, or is it the Government's usual failure to take note of the needs of that area?

Mr. Heseltine: When the hon. and learned Member has a minute to look at the document, he will find that a new field ambulance unit is to be raised in Cambridge in support of BAOR. We shall also increase the strength of existing medical units to enhance our capability.

Mr. Derek Conway: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and in particular the creation of six additional Territorial Army battalions, by which my regiment, the Light Infantry, is likely to be enhanced. Bearing in mind the fact that the Government have accepted the importance of regionally placed battalions, will he give careful consideration to the use of training areas in future? While one accepts that there is a need for economical use of training areas, long travelling times for weekend training will severely limit the ability of people on Territorial Army training weekends to get in as much as possible during the course of their man-training days. Some assurance about future approximate training areas will be warmly welcomed.

Mr. Heseltine: I know that my hon. Friend will appreciate that, with training areas, a difficult balance has to be struck between military needs and the understandable preoccupation of the civil population with enjoying large areas of beautiful countryside in peace. I know that my hon. Friend will be pleased that the Light Infantry Volunteers is raising one new company in Shrewsbury which will replace two Yorkshire companies.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What is the difference between this leak, which is helpful to the Government, and the Greenham common leak, which was not helpful to the Government? Do the Government intend to be consistent and pursue the source of the leak? As a supplementary to the question of—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a question of the Minister, not a supplementary to another hon. Member's question.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member will know that no Government, whether Labour or Conservative, can countenance wilful leaking of their confidential documents.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread satisfaction about the way in which he is carrying out the Conservative election manifesto? Does he share the community's general wish that there should be improved and enhanced links between the Regular forces, the Territorial Army forces and the community, since otherwise fewer and fewer people will have knowledge of military life? What consideration has been given to retaining and bringing back the old and famous names where possible?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. We have given much thought to names, and at the moment consultation is in progress. We want to take into account people's views on the matter. Therefore, I do not want to announce a firm decision, although we intend to do so relatively soon. At the moment, there seems to be agreement on two names. We shall adopt the name of the Royal Greenjackets in the south-east district and the Light Infantry in Yorkshire. However, that is not a firm decision. We shall consider it further. The relationship between the Territorial and the Regular forces is absolutely critical, nowhere more than in the 2nd Division in Germany, which has a large Territorial component. The other three divisions each have a Territorial Army battalion associated with them.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that when the Territorial Army was run down and the drill halls were sold under the 1964–66 Labour Government, the "Gang of Four" was included among the supporters for that measure, whether in the Government or as mere Back Benchers? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the conversion of the leader of the Social Democratic party has nothing to do with what that moderate Labour Government did but more to do with the doddering fortunes of the alliance and is not a matter of principle? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that the Territorial Army, either in its present composition or in future, will not be used against those who are picketing to save their jobs?

Mr. Heseltine: My most vivid memory of that Government is that they were made up in significant part of present leaders of the Social Democratic party. Hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) solemnly went through the Division Lobby in support of them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the four hon. Members who have been rising in their places.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I wholeheartedly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which is very good news, but will he assure the House that the Territorial Army will receive up-to-date equipment, not clapped-out stuff coming from the Regular Army, which particularly applies to signals?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. A balance must be struck. We are making some significant decisions about equipment. For example, from 1986 the


Territorial Army will get the new rifle. We are increasing the number of mortars as well as the number of field guns for it. We have increased the number of 105 mm light guns per regiment from 18 to 24. We intend to keep up that process. I mentioned LAW 80 in my original statement as a piece of equipment that will be issued. We shall do our best to ensure that the Territorial Army has the best equipment that we can afford.

Mr. John Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the enlargement of the Territorial Army, which we all welcome and which will be so important in helping our Regular forces, will give a wonderful outlet to patriotic and vigorous young people who wish to serve their country and who will have heard with contempt some of the remarks by Opposition Members?

Mr. Heseltine: As always, my hon. Friend makes a sound point. My only doubt is whether young people will not treat with contempt any remarks by Opposition Members.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Mid-Bedfordshire): May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, particularly for its potential benefit to home defence of the United Kingdom home base? Will my right hon. Friend clarify to what extent it will be improved and to what extent the forces are likely to be committed to the BAOR?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. Of the six battalions that I announced, three will be NATO role infantry battalions and three home defence infantry battalions. There will be a new air defence regiment and an additional battery for each of the three existing regiments. In addition, there will be two Royal Engineer airfield damage repair squadrons, although they have NATO implications.

Mr. Tony Baldry: My right hon. Friend referred to the need for co-operation from employers towards men and officers in the Territorial Army when they want to fulfil their commitments. Following from that, will my right hon. Friend be so kind as to have a word with my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary to ensure that any Conservative Member who has Territorial Army commitments will be smiled upon favourably when he applies for leave to go on exercises in Norway, Turkey, or wherever our Territorial Army duties take us?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Wakeham): indicated assent.

Mr. Heseltine: My experience of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary is that it is a great deal easier to get a favourable smile from him than a favourable decision.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The Secretary of State made an important statement and I should like him to clarify some points. Perhaps he could clear up the issue of social security beneficiaries, as it is an important matter about which many people have written to him regarding its effect on Territorial Army recruitment and benefits. What are his plans for the defence force and the other volunteer reserves? There are also two important matters which he did not answer directly. First, is it ever envisaged that there will be any sort of law and order role in aid of the civil power for the new battalions?
Secondly, we all read with interest in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday the statements about the organisation, the new regiments and the rest, and the statement that was neither a brief nor a leak but more of a leak than a brief. Is that to say that if a Minister makes a statement, or one of his underlings makes one with his approval, it is no longer a leak? What is the difference between a press officer making such a statement to the Sunday Telegraph and a number 10 grade Foreign Office clerk making a statement to The Guardian?Is it not a case of the Government deciding precisely what they want to do? They are both matters of national security but in one case someone gets six months because the Government are embarrassed and in another the Secretary of State for Defence hopes to get some kudos out of making a statement that is generally supported throughout the country.

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Just to amplify what I said, it was a leak, but it was an inaccurate leak, so it could not be claimed to have been based on the availability of all of the documents which would go up to making such analysis possible. As to social security, I have already answered to the effect that I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services might make a statement shortly. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait for that. On the home defence force, we are now working to a target — we have not yet achieved it—of about 5,000. We believe that it will be achieved and are pleased with the way in which the issue is proceeding. The hon. Gentleman's question about the law and order role does not arise, because there is no change to the circumstances which exist and which existed under the previous Government in connection with the armed services in this matter.

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to speak again. It is unusual to have questions from two Front Bench spokesmen, in any event.

Miss Sarah Tisdall

Mr. David Winnick: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision taken by the Attorney-General to prosecute Miss Sarah Tisdall under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.
The matter is specific in that it concerns a decision of the Attorney-General to take proceedings against Miss Tisdall which have led to her being imprisoned for six months. It is important because of the public concern about how the case was handled from the start and the clear need to change section 2 of the Official Secrets Act, which was described six years ago by the present Home Secretary as "indefensible."
The matter is urgent because of the six months' sentence that was passed on this young woman. As far as I am aware, before today there was no way in which this matter could have been dealt with once the Attorney-General took the decision to prosecute. A debate is needed so that the House can discuss, as soon as possible, all the reasons why the Attorney-General decided to prosecute Miss Tisdall under section 2 of the Act, why it was decided that she be tried at the Old Bailey and not in a magistrates' court, why action was taken against this person and not The Guardian newspaper which carried the article about cruise missiles arriving, and why a sentence that has been described as severe — some would say savage — was given when in many far more important cases that genuinely affected national security suspended sentences were handed out. For all of those reasons, I believe that We should debate the matter as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision taken by the Attorney-General to prosecute Miss Sarah Tisdall under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act.
I have listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but regret that I do not consider that the matter is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Local Government (Direct Labour Organisations) (Competition) (Scotland) Regulations 1984 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Lang.]

Orders of the Day — Trade Union Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ordered,
That the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Trade Union Bill are taken shall be New Clauses relating to Part I, amendments relating to Part I, New Clauses relating to Part II, amendments relating to Part II, New Clauses relating to Part III, amendments relating to Part III, remaining New Clauses, amendments to Clauses 17 and 18 and New Schedules.—[Mr. Tom King.]

New Clause 1

UNION BALLOTS ON APPLICABILITY OF PART I

'(1) Part I of this Act shall not apply to any trade union the members of which have in a ballot voted against the question that that Part shall apply to the union

(2) Ballots under this section shall be held in accordance with the provisions of Part I.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Brought up and, read the First time.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be conveient to take the following amendments: No. 1, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert—
'(1A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply to any trade union which elects its principal executive committee is elected as representatives of geographical areas or trade groups by a regional committee or trade group delegates who themselves have been elected by the relevant members of the Union in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of this Act.'

No. 17, in clause 1, page 2, line 5 at end insert—
'(1A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply to any trade union whose rules provide that the principal executive committee is elected as representatives of geographical areas or trade groups by a regional committee or trade group delegates who themselves have been elected by the relevant members of the Union in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of this Act.'

No. 23, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert—
'(1A) The principal executive committee may opt to waive the obligations of this section for a period of five years if they hold a secret postal ballot of all members whose results shows satisfaction with the current arrangements governing the membership and selection of the principal executive committee.'.

Mr. Smith: New clause 1 brings to the attention of the House a matter that is at the heart of the Government's intentions in part I of the Bill. In part I, the Government are trying to impose on all trade unions a chosen method of electing their principal executive committee. The House will know that part of the history of the British trade union movement is that the unions, through the decision of their members, have decided the constitution and method of election of their officials. The House will also know that British trade unions have developed in their own ways, according to their circumstances and traditions, the difficulties that they have faced and the needs of their members. If there is a general deduction to be drawn from the history of British trade unionism, I suggest that it is that, on the whole, the craft trade unions, which were the pioneers, tend to elect their principal executive committees by a system of direct election, by which the entire union elects the principal executive committee for a period of years. That can be seen in the present practice of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers.
The general unions that grew up later tend to represent a much more diverse membership. Examples are the


General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union and the Transport and General Workers Union, which tend to have more indirect methods of election. The reason is easily understood when we consider their history. They represent many people in many different occupations in different circumstances and are often the result of amalgamations. They have chosen a method of election that balances the interests of the various parts of the union and recognises diverse occupations and interests and the need to have a constitution that will work, having regard to the balance of forces and interests in the union.
One would have thought that, in approaching this matter, the Government would have been anxious to examine those factors carefully and, if they still felt the need to do anything, to respect that tradition and, above all, the wishes of the members of the trade unions. We put that to the test in new clause 1 by saying that any trade union can opt out of the Bill's provisions if it holds a ballot of its members to that effect. The Government are always telling us that the Bill is all about giving trade unions back to their members. We give them the opportunity to put the matter to the members of trade unions. If they say yes, the Government will have obtained assent, but if they say no to the proposition that the Government want to foist on them it will be crystal clear that the Government are interested not in doing what the members want but in implementing what the Government want.
The point at issue is not whether the trade unions should, in the Government's phrase, be given back to the members of trade unions — they have never been removed from the members—but whether there will be a constitution that has been decided and will be imposed by the Government or whether there will be a constitution that is freely chosen by the members of the trade unions. Freedom of association is as crucial as the freedom of the individual, and those freedoms must be weighed carefully by everyone who legislates in a democratic society.
It is of fundamental importance for free independent trade unions that they should be able to choose their own constitutions. Through the relevant ILO convention, that principle is enshrined in an international convention. It is seen internationally as a badge of the freedom of independent trade unions. We know from our recent history that trade unions in some parts of the world are shackled, whether by dictatorships of the Right or authoritarian regimes of the Left. The important question that we ask when we want to know whether trade unions are independent is how they make up their constitutions and run their internal affairs.
The Government are always telling us how shocking it is that trade union rights are suppressed in Poland, but they are happy to suppress them in this country, as we discovered, if we had not suspected it before, from their actions in the GCHQ dispute. Anyone who believes that the Bill has something to do with the good of trade unions should reflect on the Government's actions in that dispute.

Mr. David Winnick: Is it not a fact that, while preaching about trade unionism in eastern Europe, the Minister and his colleagues are keen to lay down restrictions on British trade unions, whether about the way in which they decide on internal matters or by banning trade unions altogether, as in the GCHQ dispute? What is more, is not the Conservative party one of the most undemocratic of all institutions, as, despite all pressure from within the party, there are no elections for

party chairman and the Minister of State, Department of Employment, has been appointed to his post as party chairman without any balloting or consultation of Conservative Members?

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing this feature to the attention of the wider audience that the Report stage affords us. I assure him that that point was not missed in Committee and we returned to it frequently, pointing out the inappropriateness of a politician who holds office as chairman of the Conservative party—a post to which he is not elected—giving lectures to institutions on British trade unions, which are founded on and live by the principles of democracy that the Conservative party so resolutely scorns.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman not go on to say that the Committee established a rule that, when the argument of the Opposition looked weak, they would complain about the chairmanship of the Conservative party?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman must not be so immodest as to seek to elevate his problems into a principle. Day after day in Committee we sought to point out the sickening hypocrisy of a politician appointed to an unelected post giving lectures to free, independent and democratic British trade unions.
I point out one other thing to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). During the Committee debates on part III, on the political levy, the Minister did not even turn up, because even he saw the hypocrisy of being the chairman of the Conservative party and the Minister in charge of a Bill that sought to bankrupt the Labour party. He must have been given instructions on no account to put his face near the Committee. He took his salary as a Minister but he did not turn up for the shifts on the Committee and did not appear during any of our debates on part III. The Minister's negligence towards part III is paralleled only by his hypocrisy in part I.
If the Government had bona fides in their protestations that all they want to do is to bring democracy into British trade unions, why are they not willing to put it to the test? Why should not union members themselves decide? We are kind enough in this new clause to agree to the method of election or consultation that the Government specified in part I. We are giving the Government an opportunity to conduct the ballot in a way of which they approve and we ask them to put the question to trade union members
4.15 pm
In case it is thought that it is only unions affiliated to the Labour party that are anxious about this matter, I tell the Secretary of State and the House that many trade unions that are not political in character are sometimes concerned about this matter as well, because they elect their executives in many different ways. Not long ago, I was told by the representatives of the Electrical Power Engineers Association, which elects its executive at its annual conference, that it used to have the system that the Government propose in the Bill of direct election every five years, but it decided that it lost control over the executive by using that method and it wanted more direct control over the executive by electing it annually at the conference. If that association, which is now called the


Engineers and Managers Association, wants to conduct its affairs in that way, why should it not be free to do so? If a trade union wants to elect its executive indirectly from a series of regional ballots that recognise different regional characteristics, why should it not be free to do so?
If a trade union wants a system of ballots at branches or workplaces, or a system of annual, two-yearly or three-yearly elections, why should it not be free to have them? Why, in a free society, should we seek to circumscribe trade unions uniquely in the way in which they elect their governing bodies? These provisions are not for other bodies and this concern for democracy is not expressed for other sectors.
The Government tell us that there are to be no moves to implement the Vredeling initiative of the European Community offering elementary requirements for consultation — not even industrial democracy — because, they say, compulsion would be inappropriate and to use the law in this respect would be undesirable. How quaint that a Government who are prepared to legislate for what they call democracy in trade unions shrink from promoting the interests of workers in relation to their employers.
We know that the real purpose of part I is not to enhance democracy. If that were so, the Government would happily accept the new clause, which I am sure they will oppose. The real purpose is to divert British trade unions into internal constitution-making and, the Government hope, to bring about power struggles within trade unions as they have to grapple with those new constitutions. This will divert them from pressing for better wages and conditions for their members.
Under this Government, trade unions have been assaulted in two ways. First, they have been assaulted by the Government's economic policies, which have sent millions of their members into unemployment and reduced trade union membership and, therefore, trade union finances. Working people suffer most of all during a depression or recession such as we have had, and their trade unions suffer as well.
Secondly, there has been a legal attack; this is one of a series of Bills that are meant to undermine the effectiveness of the British trade union movement in carrying out its struggle on behalf of its members for better wages and conditions against employers in both the private and the public sectors, and against the Government.
We shall see in later parts of the Bill an attempt to muzzle the trade unions by changing the political objectives that have to be governed by the political fund, according to the Bill. This Government cannot be trusted with the liberties of others, as we have seen increasingly in recent events, and under them we have seen the manifestation of an authoritarian state. This is the Government who lecture trade unions and trade unionists about democratic rights and civil liberties. It is the hypocrisy of part I that has struck us most as we considered it in Committee; and it will strike the rest of the House and the general public outside our portals as they consider what is proposed here.
If the Government were honest in their professions about democratic rights and trade unions, they would leap at the possibility of consulting trade union members. I strongly suspect that in many trade unions these changes will not be welcome to the members. For example, I have no reason to suppose that the General, Municipal,

Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union has been petitioning for years for the changes proposed in the Bill. There is no evidence that it wants direct election of the principal executive committee every five years instead of the carefully balanced system that it has at the moment. We asked Ministers repeatedly whether they had evidence that the members of that union, or of the British Medical Association, or of the Headmasters' Conference —which, believe it or not, is defined as a trade union for the purposes of the Bill—wanted the change. They could give us no such evidence.
We were told frequently, from the Second Reading onwards, that the Bill was vastly popular in the country, and particularly among trade unionists. If that is true, why are the Government reluctant to put the matter to a ballot of trade unionists in their unions? Why do not the Government live by the principles of democracy that they profess? The Government's attitude in this respect will reveal the hypocrisy of their reasoning. Not for them any understanding of the sensitivity of accountability in the trade union structure.
We have maintained throughout that one cannot just have democracy in terms of a snapshot election every five years. Democracy, in terms of our constitution as a nation or in terms of the constitution of trade unions and other organisations, occurs every week and month in the accountability of the people who run the organisation to the membership. It does not happen once every five years with the election of a committee. It occurs in reporting back to the branches and to the annual conference of the union, in the ability of members of the union to bring matters to the attention of the executive committee, through the union journal and through all the various ways in which trade unions have developed their democracy over the years. As a result, the vast majority of trade unions are truly accountable to their membership in a way that few organisations in this country can emulate.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that trade unions allow their members to see their financial dealings at their annual conferences and at other times, and that they make sure that whatever money is used in the union is used in a specific way and itemised? This weekend, Conservative Central Office was in turmoil because a new group has been set up within the party — called Charter, or something—which is launching a campaign to allow the membership to see the books. It is bordering on the hypocrisy to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred earlier for the Conservative party to refuse to allow its members to see the books — something that trade union members have always been able to do.

Mr. Smith: That is not the only problem that the Minister has had to deal with. I shall come back to that point, because it is an excellent one. The Minister had many distractions throughout the Committee stage. He had a running battle with the BBC "Panorama" programme, although I think his complaint has now been relegated to the bottom of the pile in some users' consultative committee. Apart from that problem, the Minister had people sniping at him from one section or other of the Young Conservatives or the Right wing of his party. It is amazing that he managed to turn up at all.
The Minister was continually embarrassed by the openness of trade unions about their activities and


finances. As my hon. Friend rightly said, detailed financial reports are made by British trade unions and there is tight statutory control over their political funds. One can find much of the information in the annual reports of the certification officer which are there for all to read—unlike the Conservative party, which is singularly reticent in its annual accounts about where its money comes from or goes to. The Social Democratic party and the Liberal party are both showing signs of the same lack of candour in their financial affairs. They all demand high standards of others, although they do not apply those high standards to themselves.
My hon. Friend reminds me of another matter—the high standard of integrity that exists in the management of trade union affairs in this country. In some parts of the world there is corruption not only in business but in trade unions. We in this country have been remarkably free from such corruption. Too little tribute is paid either to the full-time officers or to the lay members of trade unions, without whom the unions could not function. They show high standards of integrity, honesty and commitment in carrying out their affairs.
We should be proud of the British trade union movement. We should not take the opportunity, as this Government have done, to roll in a political gutter, trying to make cheap political points at the expense of the trade union movement. The first task of a Secretary of State for Employment should be to try to understand the trade union movement and to work with it to achieve economic progress. Instead of that, both the present Secretary of State and his predecessor have indulged in an unprecedented legal attack on the righs, principles and functions of British trade unions in our democratic society.
What has been hardest of all to take is that somehow the Secretary of State and his predecessor know better than the British trade unionists how to run the trade unions democratically. We believe that the members of free and independent trade unions should decide their constitutions for themselves, without any help from Government or Parliament. The same should be true of every other organisation in the country. The affairs of other organisations, of perhaps greater economic importance than the British trade unions, are not regulated by statute, but, somehow, the affairs of British trade unions have to be specially regulated by people who in the internal affairs of their party do not carry out the principles of democracy that they urge for others.
The new clause seeks to put the matter fairly and squarely to the members of trade unions. We accept that if those members vote to accept the Government's prescription, it would cease to be the Government's prescription and would become their own choice. However, they may refuse to accept the Government's prescription and say, "We do not want a Government-imposed, state-controlled regulation of our free and independent trade unions. We want to maintain our traditions of democracy and our constitution that we continually develop." Rules revision conferences are constantly held to update union constitutions—something of which Conservative Members have little idea. That is what happens when trade union members adjust their constitutions to new industrial or political circumstances. They should be allowed to develop their organisations in their own way. That, surely, is the path of freedom. This Bill offers the path of Government

regulation and compulsion. The Labour party asserts the right of trade unions to make up their own minds about their own affairs.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): We welcome to this further consideration of the Bill those hon. Members who did not have the privilege of being with us in Committee to debate these important issues. May I say, as an entirely impartial observer, that while this matter has been represented by the Opposition as a total attack on the fundamental rights of all trade unions, and bearing in mind the number of Labour Members who are sponsored by trade unions, it would not appear from the attendance that that view is shared by all Opposition Members.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) told his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), following his intervention, that his point had been made before in Committee. May I point out to the hon. Member for Walsall, North that almost anything that he may say on the new clause and amendments has been said endlessly in Committee. We spent 70 hours debating these issues, and I am almost inclined to award a small personal prize to any hon. Member who, in this discussion, finds something new to say on the matter. This is a direct re-run of a discussion that we had under a variety of amendments in Committee.
4.30 pm
I have nothing but the greatest admiration for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's skills as an advocate. No matter how lousy the case, he always impresses me. He has managed to wind himself up yet again to attack what he has asserted to be a fundamental assault on all freedoms. It was noticeable in Committee, and it impressed impartial observers such as me, that while Conservative Members, for whose support I was grateful, had a close practical experience of trade union activities and members, one or two Labour Members with a legal or educational background had not been closely involved in industrial unions. Even they realised that, while the procedures in many unions are of a high order— as anybody with any knowledge of unions and industry knows very well — there is a tremendous variety in standards between some which pursue democratic procedures and some which, by any standards, fall a long way short of them.
The point at issue is whether the Labour party is really proposing to deny the right to vote in properly conducted elections to a range of union members in Britain. I hope that it is common ground that unions are important institutions in this land. If that is so, I would go on to assert that, because of the structure of a modern industrial society, their conduct can have significant effects on the life, comfort and well-being of their fellow citizens. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assert that certain minimum standards should obtain in the leadership elections of those unions.
Labour Members have presented the Bill as a detailed interference in the affairs of individual unions. Anybody who bothers to stop and read the Bill will find that behind the rhetoric that does not begin to be the case. The Bill, as members of the Committee will know best of all, is based on certain elementary principles of democracy. It is based on the right of people to mark a paper to register their vote. I am not sure who would oppose that. It is based on the right of people to vote without interference or


constraint, to have a voting paper supplied to them, to have a fair and convenient opportunity to vote at no cost, in secret, and to have those votes fairly counted. That is the sum total of what is taken to be gross interference in the democratic procedures of British trade unions. The reaction of many of the public would not be outrage at this gross imposition on decent honest men and women but amazement that those conditions do not already exist in trade unions.

Mr. Winnick: I have the honour to hold a senior lay position in a trade union. I am vice-president of the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff which was formed in 1890. I am not a sponsored Member. Ever since my union came into existence we have had an annual conference and every four or five years we have a rules revision conference at which we deal with amendments and motions of various kinds relating to the internal way in which we run our affairs, including alternative systems of voting. What is undemocratic about that? What is undemocratic about a system that has existed in my union now for 94 years, whereby delegates at annual and rules revision conferences decide how to go about our business? Should we be told by the Government what system of internal voting to adopt? What is undemocratic about the system that operates in APEX?

Mr. King: I shall come to both those points. One concerns how conference delegates are chosen and whether they are elected at branch meetings. I understand that they are. The hon. Gentleman's second point concerned the ease or otherwise of changing rules at rules revision conferences. I shall deal with those points in order. I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman confirms that they are germane to his intervention.
I have set out to the House, perhaps to the surprise of some, just how limited is what we are proposing in these minimum standards for democracy. I recognise that there are many who criticise the Government, not for being too interventionist but for not adequately meeting what they think are some of the abuses that take place in some elections at present. I hope that shows the moderation and good sense of our approach.
It might shake the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East if I were to accept his new clause. That might be one of the most embarrassing things that could happen to the trade union movement, for reasons that I shall shortly give. It would embarrass the unions if they had the chance to vote about whether they were entitled to a secret vote at a convenient opportunity and without interference or restraint.

Mr. John Smith: Does not the Secretary of State realise that the new clause would incorporate all those desirable characteristics, such as having ballot papers? It also gives what the Bill otherwise does not give — a chance to union members to say whether they will accept the Government's prescription. If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make such a concession, it would be accepted with joy by Labour Members, although with some surprise.

Mr. King: Having tantalised the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have to say that I do not propose to accept the new clause or the amendments.
After I have concluded my few brief remarks and before my hon. Friend the Minister of State, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has replied to this important debate on what I take to be a central issue in part I, I hope that hon. Members will address their minds to the question why people should not have an opportunity to vote in secret at a convenient opportunity for those who actually take the effective decisions on the running of their union. That is the obligation that they have, because the new clause seeks somehow to diminish the impact of giving people that fair and minimum opportunity.
We believe — this is why I am resisting the new clause and the amendments—that part I is the minimum that should be applicable to all British trade unions. I do not presume to advise Labour Members or even the trade unions, which may have expressed certain views through them, but it is unfortunate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has sought to table this new clause and to seek publicly to be seen to oppose what to many people in Britain — the vast majority of people and the vast majority of trade unions—is exactly what people would expect and would consider to be a reasonable approach. It is clear that he will be seen to be opposing the proper extension of that democracy, which is already enshrined in the practices of the best established trade unions, and the wish to see that more widely established.
If Labour Members think that they have popular support, I must draw their attention to the fact that in the general election 60 per cent. of the country voted for parties which supported a secret ballot for the election of governing bodies of trade unions. I know that somebody will jump up and say that that does not prove anything because a mandate covers a wide range of different items. One might then be influenced by the fact that as recently as last September a MORI poll — which Labour Members occasionally believe has some validity—took a poll of trade unionists and found that 83 per cent. wanted a secret ballot for election to senior trade union office. Therefore, once again the Opposition are backing a cause that is profoundly unwise.
The Government made it clear that the proposal involves the deliberate avoidance of detailed intervention in the particular rules of individual trade unions. We sought to do that as we recognised in advance the difficulties of prescribing in great detail for individual unions. On the grounds of principle and practice it would be wrong, and, therefore, we decided not to accept the new clause. It would be wrong if some unions could opt out of the provisions. I should like an hon. Member to tell me which of the conditions unions should be entitled to opt out of. I shall be interested to hear that answer.
Amendment No. 23 also effectively allows different unions to opt out of these requirements, and, therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) who has tabled the amendment, will explain the general election alliance manifesto. It included a commitment to legislate for compulsory, secret, individual ballots for national executives. However, there appears to have been an error in its drafting because it did say that it would include some unions but not all. Has the alliance resiled from that manifesto commitment?
The argument most frequently deployed in Committee was- the- there was no need for reform. Questions were asked and answers given frequently on that matter. It is right that the House should hear that argument. The hon. Member for Walsall, North in his intervention referred to


branch meetings. He will be familiar with the Donovan report and know how long ago it was when, drawing on the experience of many years, it stated:
In many unions polls are low because voting in all elections continues to take place at branch meetings, although the focus of union activity has now shifted from the branch to the work place. To conduct elections at branch meetings in such circumstances is virtually to ensure a low poll. Some alternative method must be found by these unions if more members are to be persuaded to vote
The 1980 workplace industrial relations survey showed that little had changed since the Donovan report. It found that the average number of members who attended branch meetings was 30 from an average of 438 — an attendance of 7 per cent.; that where the branch covered employees from more than one employer attendance was usually lower—about 3 per cent; and that for several branches with about 4,000 members the average attendance was 10, which is 0·25 per cent.
Some hon. Members must feel that that is not an adequate sample of electorate at branch elections. Not to mince words, it is an outrage and a travesty of democracy, especially when some arrangements made for the branch meeting positively reinforce the Donovan report's conclusions about the difficulties that such a method represents. When the hon. Member for Walsall, North asks me whether it is democratic for his union to continue with a system of branch meetings to elect delegates and whether I am happy about that, I must say that the experience of all those wise men on the Donovan commission contradicts that.
Some hon. Members say that there is no need for reform, but it is interesting to note that despite all the criticisms of the branch meetings, a number of the largest unions — including the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff, the Association of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen, the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers (Technical, Administrative and Supervisory Section), the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, the National Union of Public Employees, the National Union of Railwaymen, the Society of Graphical and Allied Technicians, the Transport and General Workers Union, the Union of Construction and Allied Trades Technicians and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—still elect some or all of their executive members at branch meetings.
4.45 pm
My criticisms of branch meetings are directed to ensure that they achieve the minimum standards. I shall not cover the ground which was much trampled on by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). I listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East talking about the splendid traditions of reporting back to branch meetings. They are splendid in some unions, for which I have the greatest admiration, but I wonder how splendid they are in some aspects of ASTMS. About 400 branches, which is almost 50 per cent. of the total, either did not vote in any of the elections for their own union leaders or registered a nil return in them all. The president was elected with 10,000 votes cast from a membership of 427,000 — just over 2 per cent. of the total ASTMS membership. In the elections for the 16 divisional seats on

the executive, 7,000 members voted — 1·7 per cent. Therefore, I wonder whether the reporting back to branches is satisfactory.
It is not only branch voting that gives rise to great public concern about the efficacy of the operation of trade union democracy in some unions. Another unsatisfactory aspect is that the new clause and the amendment of the hon. Member for Truro would allow union members to be invited to vote to keep the block vote of the branch. Mr. Sid Weighell illustrated the case where 10 people turn up to a branch meeting, and six vote in favour of one candidate and four vote against him. If there are 300 members, those six votes can be converted into 300 unanimous votes in favour of the candidate. A number of major unions still preserve the block vote.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Does not the Minister think that the legislation would be stronger if, as we both suspect is true, a ballot took place within the unions to find out whether this is what they want?

Mr. King: The basic standards that we have set out are the minimum for democracy. I do not wish to repeat myself, because that is a disease we all contract when debating the Bill. The arguments are simple, which is probably why there has been considerable repetition. The minimum standards that have been set are the minimum that the public are entitled to expect. Unions are important institutions and their behaviour is not exclusively private and personal to them. It affects the lives and well-being of fellow citizens. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for the minimum standards to apply.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North raised a question about rules revision. In the experience of many people it can be a slow and painful business and can demand incredible dedication from those involved in what is almost a lifetime's work to achieve the necessary rules revision. The most tragic illustration of that is the Inland Revenue Staff Federation. It conducted a survey of its 60,000 members. The response, which was given to the executive and the delegates before they took their decision, was that 94 per cent. of their 60,000 members were in favour of strike ballots. Yet the delegate conference, knowing that the federation had conducted the survey and knowing the results, threw out that proposal. The general secretary of the IRSF, Mr. Christopher, said:
if the motion is lost we shall sadly have given the lie
to the statement
that trade unions can deal with their own democracy
It is against that background that the Government feel entitled to put the proposals in the Bill before the House.
I have made it clear that we recognise that many unions have established very good standards of democracy, but we are entitled to maintain, with considerable evidence in our support and with considerable public support, that there are others for which minimum standards need to be established. That is precisely what the Bill will do.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I shared with the Minister of State, but only marginally with the Secretary of State, the experience of the Committee stage of the Bill. The Secretary of State is right to say that it is not likely that we shall find much fresh evidence or arguments to put on Report. Of all the Committees that I have served on in my many years in the House, I do not recall any other that examined a Bill so carefully and meticulously as did the Committee on this Bill.
We needed to do that, because the Bill was being taken through Committee by Ministers who had little or no experience of trade union affairs and who relied almost entirely on not merely a trickle or stream but a veritable Niagara of hastily scribbled memoranda passed to them, at intervals of roughly 30 seconds, by their Civil Service advisers.
Therefore, Opposition Members had to bring to bear their practical knowledge and experience of trade union affairs. That resulted in the careful examination of the Bill —which, as the Secretary of State said, does not leave a great deal for us to say. However, it is desirable that some hon. Members who did not share the experience of the Committee should have the opportunity of giving their views during the remaining stages of the Bill. It is also desirable that in the Chamber, where our proceedings are more widely reported than the proceedings in any Committee, we should deploy the arguments against the Bill and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has done, expose the real intentions of the Government.
This is the third trade union Bill since 1979, and those Bills are the second part of a broad campaign by the Government to weaken and shackle the trade union movement. The first part of the campaign was the Government's action in rapidly increasing unemployment. The Government calculated—successfully, I fear—that nothing is more inclined to weaken the militancy of the trade union movement than the fear of those still in a job that they may be the next in the dole queue. I do not believe that the Government could have introduced and pushed through those Bills as readily as they have but for their deliberate weakening of the fibre and spirit of the trade union movement by the creation of a division between those in work and those out of work.
I was a member of the principal executive committee of my union for more than 30 years. Perhaps that entitles me to say that I have a little more experience of these matters than the Secretary of State and the Minister of State put together. I do not recall a single month, other than two periods of illness, in all those 30 years when I did not report to one or more branches of the union on my activities as an executive member.
Of course there are low ballots in trade unions; there are low ballots in all institutions. The world is full of willing people—a few are willing to work and the rest are willing to let them. That is true of the House, of political parties, of rotary clubs, of trade unions and of all other institutions. It is always a handful of dedicated people who do the work.
Democracy is not measured by how many people vote. It is measured by people having the right, opportunity and facility to vote, but also by the acceptance of those who are elected of their duty to hold themselves accountable to the people who elected them.
The Secretary of State referred to ASTMS. I do not think that he is quite as obsessed with that union as is the Minister of State, who no doubt wakes up screaming about ASTMS in the middle of the night. I remind the Secretary of State that a majority of, the members of the principal executive committee of ASTMS are elected as representatives of each of the 16 divisions of the union.

That is the way that members want it, but presumably we shall not be able to have that system if the Bill reaches the statute book.
At every monthly meeting of every divisional council there is on the agenda a report by the council's executive member. The executive member reports back. If he does not, he will have little chance of being re-elected. That accountability and the acceptance of the duty to give an account of one's stewardship are part of democracy.
Executive council members realise that they are not like a fairy godmother bestowing benefits on the poor citizenry or a god descending from Olympus to have a word with the mortals running over the foothills. Reporting back is part of an executive council member's solemn duty to be accountable to those who chose him. That is real democracy, and that is what goes on.
The Secretary of State also referred to the difficulty of getting rules revisions. I chaired six annual delegate conferences of my union, including one that was entirely devoted to rules revisions. Many hundreds of amendments were tabled and dozens were carried. I do not recall anyone at any annual delegate conference experiencing any difficulty in getting a motion on the order paper to amend one or more of the rules of the union. Nor do I recall anyone having any difficulty in moving, supporting, opposing or debating any motion. I also do not recall a majority of those who were present experiencing the least difficulty in carrying such an amendment, sometimes against the wishes of the executive committee, to have alterations made in the rule book of the union. In my period of service in the union, the rules had to be reprinted more than a dozen times, and maybe more than 20 times, because of the many changes to rule that were made in that period.
5 pm
The Minister of State characteristically got all uptight about his somewhat equivocal role as the unelected chairman of the Conservative party, lecturing the trade unions on practices of democracy. I should have thought that the Secretary of State, who has more brains in his boots than the Minister of State has in his head, would have been very careful to stay off that piece of thin ice. Of course it is nonsense for the Conservative party to lecture the trade unions, or anyone else, on the practices of democracy.
On this subject, I wish to quote from a document prepared not by members of the Labour party but by members of the Conservative party. A group of members of the Conservative party produced what is called in the party the SPF charter—for "set the party free". This is a bunch of people in the Conservative party who think that, before the right hon. Gentleman goes about the task of setting the trade unions free, he ought to begin his charity at home and set the party free. The right hon. Gentleman might care to contrast what this group of members of the Conservative party said with his animadversions this afternoon about, and against, the trade union movement:
All significant decisions in the Conservative Party are taken at a level that is far too remote from the bulk of its membership. The membership of the Party has little if any say in such decisions nor, virtually in any instance, in the people who make the decisions on their behalf. This is true of policy, organisation and finance and, very often, in the selection of candidates to represent them on public bodies.
As to the difficulty that the trade unions experience in amending the rules, this is what members of the Conservative party say about their own party:


There is no mechanism by which any of this can be changed. There are no rules governing the arrangement and therefore no provision for changing the arrangement.
On this point, I want to quote an authority even weightier than members of the Conservative party. I want to quote the judgment of a court. In August 1980, an appeal was made by Conservative Central Office against a tax assessment. In its judgment, which is set out in full in the "All England Law Reports", 19 August 1980, the court said:
All the appointment(s) of the principal officers of Central Office are made by the Leader, and it is to the Leader that they are responsible. The evidence shows that the Central Office works under the direction of the party Leader and that the party Leader can direct how the moneys under the control of the Central Office are to be spent. It is a constant theme throughout the evidence that neither the national union nor the constituency associations have any control over those moneys.
Those are the people who are telling the trade union movement how to be democratic and who are seeking, in part III of the Bill, to intervene in the ways in which the moneys of the trade union movement are built up and how they are controlled by its members.
There is one outstanding point about the new clause that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East has moved. Anybody without a Notice Paper who listened to what the Secretary of State said would have concluded that the argument between the two sides of the House concerned whether to have a ballot, that the Government are calling for a ballot, with the Opposition refusing to have a ballot. In fact, the new clause is tabled to demand a ballot: that is the reason for its inclusion.
The new clause says:
(1) Part I of this Act shall not apply to any trade union the members of which have in a ballot
In other words, the clause is saying, "Let us have a ballot of members to decide whether they want this part of the Bill to operate." If that is not calling for a ballot, I do not know what is. I fancy that the Secretary of State has lost his capacity to understand plain English. Of course, the clause calls specifically for a ballot.
I repeat what I said earlier. No one listening to the Secretary of State would have dreamed that he was opposing a clause which is calling for a ballot, but that is precisely what he is doing. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, this is an acid test of the genuineness of the Government in claiming that the objective of the Bill is to give the unions back to their members, because, if that were the objective, there could be no conceivable case against accepting the new clause.
The plain fact of the matter is that the Government are in favour of trade unions which are free and independent and which can make up their own minds on how they run themselves, and they are in favour of trade unions that are not subject to Government control—as long as those unions are in Poland, not in Great Britain. I fancy that the Secretary of State knew what a feeble rejoinder he was making.
The great trouble with the Government is that they are no longer performing well. They have been vitiated by the size of their majority. They come to the Dispatch Box shrugging their shoulders and say, "Never mind what we say, it does not matter if the chaps on the other side have a better case; in the end the hordes will come rolling into the Lobby, so why should we worry?" I think that that is the impression that the Secretary of State would have given today to any impartial observer. He made a very thin

case, and, since he made such a thin case, I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend should have the support of the House.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: I was among those who spent many hours in Committee listening to the debate on the Bill. It seemed like an eternity at the time. How readily the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) has reminded us of that eternity. I listened to some 70 hours or more of debate in Committee. The main theme behind the argument that has come from the Labour Benches is the proposition that unions can best be left to look after their own constitution, and, in so doing, will not cause unfairness to their members. That proposition underlies their opposition to all parts of the Bill and was repeated many times.
It is important to test that now in the light of current circumstances and the words used in Committee. I remind the House of two speeches in Committee. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said that the Government
base their arguments upon the absurd proposition that trade union officials and leaders are power-crazy barons who are always dragging their reluctant members out on strike. Anyone who knows anything about industrial relations whether on the management or on the union side—I have spoken to many on both—would say that this was an absurd caricature and that the opposite was true. In many cases, workers want to go on strike and the trade union bureaucracy acts to make them pause and consider before committing the union's funds."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 7 February 1984; c. 962.]
The union held as the paragon of virtue in terms of democracy was the National Union of Mineworkers.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is in the Chamber, because I want to quote from what he said in Committee. He said that the Minister
has mentioned the NUM from time to time. That union is held up in this place as an example to the trade union movement. I am not talking about the president; he does what the membership tells him to do."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 14 February 1984; c. 1084.]
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has described examples of how trade unions have in the past mismanaged their constitutions to the detriment of their members. I want to examine the basic Opposition theme in the context of the current action by the NUM. The Labour party argued that a union's constitution is safe in the hands of the union executive and that it is for its members to decide how to run the union. If that is so, it will stand the test of examining what is now happening in the NUM.
The overwhelming public recognition of what is happening is that the NUM executive and its president have used every conceivable constitutional loophole to avoid referring to their members and accepting their democratic judgment about whether to go out on strike. In the context of the new clause, it is interesting to examine the device by which the executive has procured that end. The union's national constitution calls clearly for a ballot on a national strike. The executive has used the regional structure and committees to break the union action down on a regional basis—[Interruption.]—I can see that I am touching a sensitive nerve — because precisely in that way—

Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should not have raised a point of order, but the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) has been unaccountably rude. The hon. Member is addressing his


remarks to a different part of the Bill from that which we are discussing. Another part of the Bill deals specifically with strikes and strike balloting, but the hon. Gentleman is discussing that now. He has just referred to a ballot on a strike by NUM members. Would it not be in the best interests of good order if the hon. Gentleman made his speech on the new clause to which it is relevant?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): This is a wide debate about ballots and part I of the Bill. I have not heard anything yet from the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) which is out of order.

Mr. Batiste: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for underlining my point, which is that some trade unions will use their constitutions to manipulate their membership. That lies at the heart of the current dispute. That is as relevant to part I of the Bill as it is to part II. No doubt it will be referred to on many occasions, although I am sure that the Opposition would like to avoid the issue. In truth, there can be no reasonable doubt that the one and only reason why there has not been a national ballot by the NUM is that the executive would not like the result. Instead, we have seen manipulations, the refusal to recall the executive, and the use of intimidation against regions which have balloted and come out against the strike in order to push forward the views of the executive.

Mr. John Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) is taking the debate so far away from new clause 1—

Mr. Tom King: Nonsense.

Mr. John Smith: Perhaps the Secretary of State will allow me to continue without rudely interrupting me. The hon. Member for Elmet is complaining about strikes without union leaders obtaining the consent of members. That has nothing to do with part I of the Bill, which deals with ballots for the election of union officials. We shall make nonsense of the debate if we debate part II when we are supposed to be debating part I.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is right to say that the new clause concerns the election of officials, but it is in order to illustrate the arguments for and against the new clause. That is what the hon. Member for Elmet is doing.

Mr. Batiste: The nub of the Opposition case is that union constitutions can be left safely in the hands of the executives, without basic democratic, minimum safeguards being established by law. I say that the current action by the NUM shows that that is a false premise. It is false in relation to part I and it is false in relation to part II. The new clause tries to give trade unions the power to contract out of the legislation. It gives it to them in such wide terms that it will be open to blatant manipulation, as instanced by the NUM now. If anything has come out since the end of the Committee stage, in the light of what has happened in the mining industry, it is—

Mr. John Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Batiste: The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has already confused points of order with

points of information. Perhaps he will allow me to continue my point and then I will give way. Far from seeking to give more freedom to the trade union executives, the Secretary of State must ensure that this legislation leaves no loopholes for those who seek to use the law and their constitutions to deny their basic democratic purposes. We must amend the Bill not to allow contracting out but to ensure that it prevents action to avoid trade union members taking their own decisions.
My contention is that the Bill should not provide a power to contract out but that the commitment to democracy should be built in, in relation to elections and strike action, in such terms that no president of a union can defy the wishes of his members. There is no provision in the employment protection legislation, for example, for general contracting out. I see no reason why there should be general contracting out in this Bill.

Mr. John Smith: Is the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) aware that frequently in Committee Conservative Members referred with approval to the method of electing officials to the NUM? Is he aware that the NUM executive is largely elected in accordance with the scheme proposed by the Government in the Bill? What, therefore, is the relevance of his argument? On what conceivable basis can it be said to give the unions back to their members when the constitution proposed by the Government would be forced through against the wishes of, for example, 94 per cent. of the members? How are we giving unions back to the members if the members vote to reject the proposition?

Mr. Batiste: The answer is simple. I sat through the Committee and listened to sponsored members of the NUM and others. From what I heard, I thought it inconceivable for us to have industrial action in the coal industry without a national ballot. I suspect that that was also the feeling of the members of that union, in overwhelming numbers.
If we cannot rely upon a union such as the National Union of Mineworkers, given its history, it is surely important for the Government to ensure that there is a framework in which are set out minimum standards of democracy within industrial relations.

Mr. Gordon Brown: The new clause seeks to substitute a good and workable democratic principle in place of the bad and unworkable one that is contained in the Bill. The clause seeks constitutional self-determination by trade union memberships instead of the rigid uniformity that the Government seek to impose. It seeks to replace coercion with consent and to establish that trade unions will have the right to decide for themselves what constitutional arrangements are most suitable for the running of their unions' affairs.
The Government have failed to make any case for the unilateral change that they seek to impose. They have not been able to substantiate any claim of widespread dissatisfaction—not in the Green Paper which preceded the Bill, not on Second Reading, not in Committee and not in the report of the Donovan commission, which studied trade unions' constitutions in depth and detail and to which the Secretary of State referred — or abuse that could justify the removal from trade unions of the right to decide their internal constitutions.
The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) sought to draw into the debate a discussion on part II instead of addressing himself to the issue before us, the election of


trade union executives. He seems not to realise that the NUM's constitution conforms to all the established procedures that the Government seek to impose on other unions. The NUM's constitution is the model democracy that the Government speak of as representing the standards of the best and to which other unions must raise themselves. The Government have made no case for the proposed reforms. They could not tell us in Committee which unions would be affected by the Bill and to what extent.
The Government seem unaware that trade union members have had the right to vote and to a voice in their union's affairs for the past century. In one instance involving the British Dental Association, the Minister could not tell us which executive committee would be affected by the Bill. The Under-Secretary of State referred to a major section of one of the largest trade unions as being composed of boiler builders. It can well be said that the Government have opted for change without seeking to understand the complexity, diversity and essential democracy of the trade union movement. The Government have made no attempt to seek the views of trade unionists on any proposal for reform. The Government's approach to this proposed legislation is no more than ignorance tempered by malice.
If the Government do not accept the reasonableness of the clause, they are effectively saying that for them there is only one form of democracy and that there can be only one rigid, blanket and uniform test of what democracy is to be. Ministers are saying that democracy is in some way undermined if a regional or trades committee of a trade union elects representatives to sit on the union's national executive committee. They are saying that democracy is somehow imperilled if a branch of a trade union meets and votes for representatives to sit on an executive committee. The Government are saying that democracy ceases to exist when the annual conference of a trade union elects members to its executive committee.
In other words, for this Government, any collective decision-making process in which 200–300 or 2,000 or 3,000 union members gather to make decisions can be described as undemocratic.
The Secretary of State has said that the standards of the worst must be raised to those of the best. It is surprising that the best, in his view, are the NUM and the constructional section of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, which comply exactly with the form of constitution that the right hon. Gentleman wants to impose on all other unions. The trade unions that are furthest away from the Government's test of democracy are professional and staff associations such as the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Midwives and the British Air Line Pilots Association, so beloved of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. These organisations elect most of their executive members at their annual conferences. They will have to make fundamental changes to their constitutional procedures, which were previously acceptable to their memberships.
In Committee, the Minister of State had the audacity to brand as rotten boroughs some of the largest and longest-established unions. He included the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, the National Union of Railwaymen and the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union. If the Minister of State is to get away with labelling UCATT as a rotten

borough because it elects its executives by votes at special branch meetings—a perfectly democratic procedure until the introduction of the Bill—is he not saying also that the Association of Principals of Colleges, the Federation of Sub-Postmasters, the Bank of England Staff Association, the Cadbury-Schweppes Managers Association and many other professional associations, all of which elect their executives in a similar way, are rotten boroughs?
If USDAW is to be called a rotten borough, the same description must be applied to the National League of the Blind and Disabled, which elects its executives in exactly the same way. Again, it was a perfectly proper procedure until the introducion of the Bill.
If GMBATU is to be labelled a rotten borough, so must the Headmasters Conference, which adopts exactly the same procedures. The majority of trade unions, professional associations, staff associations and all associations that are registered as trade unions will have to accept changes imposed upon them unilaterally for no other reason than the Government's blind prejudice.
I shall try to summarise the history of the Green Paper and the Bill. Abuses which did not exist have had to be invented. The abuses which the Government imagined led to the ultimatum that appeared in the Green Paper. It was stated that the abuses must cease and that dictatorial powers would be assumed by the Government if they did not. The ultimatum in the Green Paper has expired and the Government are saying that their patience is exhausted. As a result, the constitutional arrangements of nearly 500 unions are to be overturned. All this is to be done in the name of democracy. For the purposes of the Bill, democracy is only what the Government say it is; it cannot be anything else.
Why should the trade union movement take lessons in democracy from the unelected chairman of the Conservative party, from a man with a grace-and-favour appointment? Why should it take lessons from a Minister who in his political utterances is no more than his mistress's voice? Why should the trade unions take lessons on democracy from a party that first elected its leader 100 years after trade unions started electing theirs, and whose annual conferences were held for a century without a vote ever being permitted? Even now, the highest form of participation at a Conservative party conference is the standing ovation.
There is a small and declining body of Conservatives called the Association of Conservative Trade Unionists. Is the executive of that body elected directly by its members? Is it not the case that the chairman and executive members of the association are elected indirectly by votes from the constituencies of the Conservative party and by votes from the regions? Is it not the case that the secretary of the association is hired and fired—he was fired in 1979—on the decision of only one person, the leader of the Conservative party?
5.30 pm
The Bill, if left unamended, will do more than undermine established principles of democratic diversity. Indeed, it has another, more sinister, purpose which we seek to correct. The unions are not to be handed back to their members; rather, they are to be handed to the courts.
If a sole union member finds the venue for, or timing of, an election inconvenient; if he does not receive a ballot form, for whatever reason; if he wants his bus or rail fare


or car expenses refunded when he casts his vote—this is not provided for in parliamentary or local elections but is to be imposed on the trade union movement — that individual, irrespective of any support or the lack of it, will be encouraged to bring an action in the courts—indeed, to bring as many actions as possible and as often as possible—to seek to have that election declared null and void.
Why, in their imposition of such constitutional constraints on the trade union movement, have the Government sought to go so far beyond the law governing even parliamentary and local elections? Surely what is good enough for parliamentary and local government electors is good enough for electors in the trade union movement. Why should union members be encouraged by this ill-considered legislation—which even its supporters admitted in the Green Paper was conducive to mischievous applications to the courts — to become embroiled in litigation which, from the wording of the Bill, must be vexatious?
There can be no innocent purpose to the Bill. What the Conservatives have failed to achieve through the activities of a small and diminishing band of Tory members in the unions they now seek to achieve by a measure which will promote and propagate vexatious litigation.
There is no evidence that trade union members would prefer Government-imposed constitutions to the arrangements that have evolved during the last century, along with the freedom that exists to change those arrangements should union members desire change. To impose one constitution on the 18 members of the Cloth Pressers Society and on the 1·5 million members of the Transport and General Workers Union is to dictate an inflexible and utterly irrational uniformity.
To tell 11 million trade unionists in Britain that they can vote only under terms and conditions laid down by the state is to treat them as though they have not fully reached the age of consent. To insist, for the first time in our industrial history, that trade unions vote only within, but not about, their constitutions is to narrow the scope of democracy and to attempt to reduce a century of diverse and democratic tradition in Britain to the truncated and sterile politics of the bantustan.
The House should suport our proposals as a first step on the road back to sanity in our industrial affairs, so enabling the unions to do their job and represent their members.

Mr. David Evennett: I, too, had the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee. I agree with the Secretary of State that little that is new can be said on the issue, and we have so far heard little that is new from Opposition Members.
We have heard about numerous rule books, about theoretical problems and about the way in which unions regularly change their rules. Opposition Members have such a weak case that on many occasions in Committee we had to be given a geographical tour of various parts of the country, including Yorkshire, Scotland and south Wales, because they had run out of a clear point of view to put.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has put the Opposition case with his usual flair. As usual when the argument is weak, the irrelevancies are laid on even stronger. One might have got

the impression that the provisions of clause 1 were totally different from those described by Labour Members. Indeed, throughout our deliberations, there has appeared to be no relationship between their arguments and the wording of the measure.
Part I of the Bill says that every voting member of a principal executive committee of a union should hold office only by virtue of having been elected at an election. What objection could there possibly be to that? It goes on to say that no person should remain such a member for more than five years without being re-elected at an election. That was a major plank in the campaign at the last general election and it resulted in the Conservatives being re-elected.

Mr. John Evans: What was a major plank?

Mr. Evennett: The reform of trade union voting procedures. It is a moderate and democratic proposal, but the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East —who has fled the Chamber—was wrong in what he said, for the Bill is designed to give the trade unions back to the membership by ensuring that the leadership keeps in touch with the membership by regular elections.

Mr. John Evans: The hon. Gentleman should not make such sneering remarks about my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), who has been in his place for two hours but who has had to leave on an important errand. I might have referred to the Secretary of State having fled the Chamber some time ago.

Mr. Evennett: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that irrelevant intervention. I was simply pointing out that it was a pity that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not in his place while I was commenting on a point that he had made.
Opposition Members have made so many legal points that one by Lord Denning, in summing up the changed position of trade unions, is apposite. He is reported as having said:
In the nineteenth century they were persecuted and oppressed: in the twentieth they have 'exploited their immunities beyond measure'.
There must be reform because the trade unions are large, rich and powerful institutions within society and, as the Secretary of State pointed out, they are vital to an industrial society. However, they are privileged members of society and the public demand that they conduct their affairs in a correct and proper manner. They must command respect and confidence, among both their members and the general public.
Many trade unions do that. For those which do not, the law must be reformed to make them do so. We have heard today, as we heard in Standing Committee, of virtues of the NUM, but we cannot fail to be aware of what has happened in that union of late; a national ballot has not taken place.
We in this country pride ourselves on being a democracy; the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) spoke about that at length. The Labour party professes a great belief in democracy. We on these Benches believe equally strongly in democracy. There have been too many irrelevancies from Opposition Members about the whole issue of democracy.
We elect representatives to this House for a maximum of five years. How can the Opposition claim that elections


to the principal executive committees of unions on a similar basis are wrong? Do they expect the public to believe what they say? Further, how can anyone disagree with the election by the membership of a union of people to serve on the executive committee of that union? We hear constant irrelevancies from Opposition Members as they try to camouflage the weakness of their case.
The point to remember is that the provisions of the Bill are not practised by all unions in Britain. In other words, not all unions have implemented the proposed procedures. They had ample opportunity to discuss the matter with the Government, but they chose not to do so. There is a stark disparity of attitude between trade union members and their leaders. The leaders have in many cases led the members in a direction which they have not wanted to take, and the members have not had the opportunity of a proper say. We have heard about the situation at the Inland Revenue; the members wanted one thing and the trade union leaders did not allow them to have it. That cannot be right.
It is the responsibility of any Government representing all the people to change the law. The Bill is an attempt to make the trade unions more democratic and responsible for their actions. Nothing will keep trade union leaders in touch with their membership more effectively than a reelection system whereby they must put their record before their electorate every five years, or more frequently if they so wish. We heard in Committee how Mr. Scargill was elected for life. I accept that the NUM has now changed that, and no doubt the membership is very grateful. Nevertheless, the unions have not reformed themselves as they should have done. The Conservative party put forward its proposals at the general election and a Conservative Government were re-elected. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, 60 per cent. of the people who voted cast their votes in favour of parties seeking trade union reform. That reform is now proposed in a democratic spirit.

Mr. Mikardo: I have two questions for the hon. Gentleman. First, is he aware that in my 30-odd years as an elected member of the executive of a union I had to stand for re-election every two years, not every five years? Why does he assume that without the Bill people will be on their executives without standing for re-election? Secondly, I believe that the hon. Gentleman is a Lloyd's underwriter. Will he tell the House how often the management committee of Lloyd's comes up for reelection?

Mr. Evennett: If the hon. Gentleman is re-elected every two years, I am amazed that he should object to a proposed maximum of five years. It is clear that he and his union support that part of the Bill as they support the membership keeping in regular touch with its officials in that way. We applaud that, but in some unions it does not happen. Many members in that particular union have found that they do not have such opportunities—

Mr. Winnick: Which particular union is that?

Mr. Evennett: I cannot answer half a dozen points at the same time.
The other matter mentioned by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) is utterly irrelevant to the Bill. Most Opposition Members have been discussing irrelevancies, which shows the weakness of their case.

Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I assure you that, although the hon. Gentleman has now for the fourth time impugned your conduct of the Standing Committee by claiming that you permitted irrelevancies, you nevertheless have the support of all other members of the Committee?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member.

Mr. Evennett: Of course I had no intention of impugning your conduct of the Committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Bill deals with trade union elections and how often they should be held. We are not discussing any other matters and I have no intention of going down a dead end that is irrelevant to the matter before us.

Mr. John Evans: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue about the election of the principal executive committees of trade unions. Will he give us the benefit of his trade union knowledge by naming a trade union which does not elect its principal executive committee?

Mr. Evennett: That has been debated at length in Committee. Contrary to the belief of some Opposition Members, I have been a member of a trade union—the National Union of Teachers—although that union has not featured regularly in our debates.
I am amazed that the Opposition believe that a once-for-all ballot can possibly be democratic, as they now propose. It is incredible to suggest that a once-in-a-lifetime ballot of all members is democratic, when we all know that membership changes not just from decade to decade but from year to year as people enter and leave a particular sector of the labour market.

Mr. John Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman again give us the benefit of his knowledge of the trade union movement by telling us which trade union elects its principal executive committee on a once-in-a-lifetime basis?

Mr. Evennett: The proposal to which the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have put their names suggests that unions should be allowed to opt out of the legislation after a once-for-all ballot. That is unacceptable and undemocratic. That is why there has been so much bluster by the Opposition to divert attention from the real issue. They do not want it to get out that they do not believe that the five-year regular ballot which is good enough for Parliament is also good enough for the trade unions. They do not want people to realise that, so they are proposing a once-for-all ballot, which we cannot possibly accept.

Mr. Penhaligon: I believe that there is a better case for the Government's proposals than has been made by either of the two Conservative Back Benchers who have spoken so far. I believe that there is considerable justification for the Government's general attempt, although we have tabled an amendment proposing that unions should be able to waive the obligations of this part of the Bill for a period of five years if a secret postal ballot of all members expresses satisfaction with the current arrangements governing the membership and selection of the principal executive committee. If that amendment were passed and


the Bill became law, the provisions now in the Bill would cover the vast majority of cases but members could, if they so desired, opt out of the provisions by means of a five-yearly postal ballot.
Before explaining why I seek to convince the House of that, I will first give some background to the argument. I believe that there is some basic justification for the thrust of the Government's proposals on this. Unions, by their very nature, are run by activists who, by their very nature, are not necessarily typical of the members whom they seek to represent. I have found that to be the reality and I suspect that many other hon. Members have found the same.

Mr. Evans: Does that apply to the Liberal party, too?

Mr. Penhaligon: Given the number of party members who wish me to pursue matters such as site value rating in the House, I suspect that it may well be true. I note that I have the backing of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on that.
Activists in British trade unions sometimes show an enthusiasm for strike action that is not typical of their members — indeed, we are in the midst of such a situation now — and they often show a militancy not typical of their members. The most well-documented instance is the fact that the politics of many activists in some of the big unions are not typical of the membership at large. One has only to consider the number of Communist party members who hold powerful union positions and contrast that with the voting behaviour of the membership in democratic general elections to realise that something slightly peculiar is happening.
The general thrust of the Government's proposals would give the membership an opportunity to change the executive, to elect new members and to throw people off, which the present system denies them. In general, part I is justifiable, and its general thrust has my support.
It is a valid point—the Government have not replied to this matter—that people, who have given their lives to trade unions and do a phenomenal amount of outstanding work for the union members, do not believe that the mass membership of their union is anything other than totally satisfied with the way the executive is currently elected. That point is often put to me, and it was expressed a great deal in Committee. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) is a good example of a respected trade unionist who has for a considerable period made that argument vigorously and consistently.
I do not see why the Government cannot accept my modest amendment, given their enthusiasm for democracy and their justification for this legislation and the fact that the amendment insists on giving the grass roots membership of the union what they want. I suspect that, if my amendment were accepted, the resultant change would be small. If the members of the Transport and General Workers Union and many other large unions were given the chance to say that they wanted a direct say in electing their executives, the unions might well grant that opportunity. I may be wrong, but I do not see why we are insisting, by statute, that unions shall elect their members in this manner, if it can be demonstrated in secret ballot that that is not what the union members want. That is a key point.
I cannot go as far as the Labour party amendment does, because it would mean a one-off ballot. The opportunity for such a ballot might never arise if, in a particular month, the union's mood was against holding that ballot. Under my amendment, unions could maintain their present arrangements if at five-yearly intervals they demonstrated in a secret postal ballot that the membership was satisfied with those arrangements.
The imposition of the Government's schemes may—I put it no stronger than that—cause a degree of militant and politicised elections within some of the smaller unions. I do not believe that the Government are trying to encourage those aspects.
I have been impressed by some of the representations of some of the smaller professional unions that the imposition of this measure will be detrimental. No Conservative Member or, I suspect, Opposition Member would criticise the way such unions function. I am not saying to Conservative Members that I basically reject the Government's arguments on part Ito give all trade union members an opportunity to vote in electing their executives. I am saying merely — at least one Conservative Member argued against this proposal—that the satisfaction of the mass membership of unions with the present arrangements, as shown at five-yearly intervals, should take precedence over the provisions of part I. That is a modest request to make of the Government. I do not believe that it fundamentally taxes their legislation. My amendment is a move in the right direction. I do not see why the Minister cannot say that the version of the argument which I and my hon. Friends have put forward is acceptable.
The general desire of the unions to have greater control over their destiny is justified. The Minister should apply his mind not to rhetoric or general abuse of the present system—I do not seek to justify any of that—but to why, given the Government's great faith in democracy, the amendment cannot be allowed.

Mr. Batiste: I should like the hon. Gentleman to address himself to one point in his amendment—the reference to the postal, as opposed to the secret, ballot. Does this mean that he would like to see all ballots conducted under this Bill to be exclusively postal ballots?

Mr. Penhaligon: My amendment refers to secret postal ballots — I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was not trying to score a point. Further amendments tabled by members of the Social Democratic party will have the effect of calling for postal ballots. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) will, if he catches Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye, argue that case. I thought that the hon. Gentleman intended bringing forward a reason for being against my modest proposal, and I was disappointed that he did not. Perhaps one of the other Conservative Back Benchers will do so before the debate terminates. To date, the Government have not come up with a good argument for doing other than vote for the amendment.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: The proposals of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) are not very wide, although the hon. Gentleman suggests that they are, of the principle stated by the Labour party. The hon. Gentleman was really saying that the Government will offer this legislation to the unions and say, "Here is the piece of legislation. If you do not like it, you need not have


it. You can vote against it, but the others must put up with it." We should not approach the legislation in that way, certainly not when making fundamental differences to some of the unions' facilities. Inevitably, the unions will reject that concept. They will accept the five-yearly voting provisions, but union pressure will be to reject the legislation.
It is not sensible to offer this legislation to the unions and say, "If you do not like it, you need not do it." Despite what the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said, this is an inflexible and uniform approach. It is not true that it is too rigid in what it seeks to do. The clause states that union members must vote at least every five years for the executive, but the system is flexible in its time and its provisions for allowing various sections of the unions to elect members. We are trying to create a general framework within which union rules must lie. The legislation is not as unreasonable or rigid as has been suggested.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) was worried, as he has been on odd occasions in the past, about the position of the Conservative party. The Conservative party is not a trade union. Its members do not have to join a trade union to obtain a job in a certain area, unless they want to be elected to Parliament, as in the last election. That concept shows a distinct difference between Conservative and Labour views.
It is true that the development of the unions in the past 100 or more years has been complicated. Have attitudes developed? The Government, during the passage of various pieces of legislation, including this Bill, are trying to get the unions to show a more futuristic approach. Some of the unions have lagged behind. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has said that the trade unions have fulfilled a purpose in trying to struggle—that is the operative word—against employers in the public and private sectors. We are trying to change the position so that there is not a struggle against employers but a struggle with them to serve this country. We do not want the direct antagonism that was implicit in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words. We want the trade unions to develop in the future.
We have not adopted an anti-trade union approach at any time during the passage of the Bill—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar may think so, but some of us are convinced and recognise the vital part that modern trade unions have to play in the future. Those trade unions, however, must change, as industry and commerce must, their appoach to what happens. That does not mean that trade unions are not important, but we are advocating changes for the future. I believe that that is what the Bill does, but if we accept the amendment we will be going the wrong way and saying, "All right, lads, do as you please." The legislation is trying to guide the unions into the future.

6 pm

Mr. Tony Blair: I congratulate the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) on making a speech relevant to the subject we are discussing. The hon. Members for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) made speeches of colossal and thundering irrelevance. They attempted to introduce the present miners' dispute into the debate.
Ballots for union elections have nothing to do with any issue in the current dispute. Secondly, the Government have held out the manner in which elections to the National

Union of Mineworkers' executive is held as a paradigm of what union elections should be. Both points show that those two hon. Members have not grasped the issue. It is not surprising that they scurry away—

Mr. Batiste: If the rationale behind the hon. Gentleman's argument is that the unions can be trusted to apply democracy in the interests of their members without the backstop of legislation, the question he appears to have overlooked is how one reconciles the action of the National Union of Mineworkers in relation to the miners' strike. It is a matter of intention rather than the application of ballots.

Mr. Blair: Before the hon. Gentleman intervened, I thought that he had not understood what I was saying. That opinion is now confirmed.
If the purpose of the legislation is to implement the wishes of trade union members, how can that be achieved without ascertaining the wishes of each individual member? That issue is paramount within the context of trade union democracy.
Every hon. Member must appreciate that the Government are embarking upon a highly unusual step when they impose state regulation on voluntary associations. Everyone would accept that that is highly unusual, although some Conservative Members would try to justify it. It is unusual because of the voluntary nature of trade unions and because in other European countries it is rare, if not unknown, for the state to impose particular systems of elections upon trade unions. Unions are voluntary bodies composed of people who desire to form an association for particular ends. Prima facie, they are entitled to decide their own future.
One of the points that seems to be forgotten by Conservative Members when debating this subject is that trade unions have rule-changing procedures. They can initiate rule changes whenever they wish. The absence of any great push for rule changes within trade unions militates heavily against the Government's claim that trade union members desire that reform. It is precisely because of the unusual step that the Government were taking that they sought to push their justification for the Bill on the highest ground that they could. They chose the high ground of trade union democracy. The purpose of the new clause is to bring reality face to face with that issue.
The Green Paper on trade union democracy, the Conservative party manifesto and the speech of the Secretary of State on Second Reading all talk about the desire to give the unions back to their members. The great cry that was heard was, "Let the union members decide how their unions are to be run and controlled."
If the new clause is rejected, a trade union's members could desire to have their union run in a particular way, and that desire can be obliterated by the legislation. No one can deny that. One could have a trade union in which 100 per cent. of the membership wanted particular rules, but the Government would take away its right to decide that and say, "No, you must decide your rules according to our legislative diktat." That would be the inevitable consequence of the Bill. How on earth can opposition to the new clause be justified in terms of trade unions' rights? It simply cannot be done.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton attempted to deal with that point. He suggested that if the amendment were accepted there would be trade union members who would


not have what the Government considered an ideal form of democracy. He said that the rights of the minority in any trade union ballot would not function because they would not be allowed this particular system of democracy. The fact that the wishes of the majority should prevail is the answer to that point. If the system that the hon. Gentleman wishes to see is introduced, the majority who want the trade unions to run in the future as they are now will have their rights taken away in favour of the minority. The hon. Gentleman is saying that, whenever there is a ballot, the majority will win and the minority will lose. That is not right.
If the new clause is rejected, the proposed procedure will be forced on trade unions whether their members want it or not. It is for that reason that the Minister of State in Committee sought to shift the justification for this legislative procedure. He did not talk about the rights of trade union members, because he appreciated that he could not justify this measure on that basis; he talked about trade unions' immunities from action by employers. That is the important point that the Government wish to make. They do not seek to justify the Bill on the basis of trade union members' rights; if that were so, they would allow trade union members to decide whether they wish to have this procedure. The Government wish to alter the balance of industrial power to ensure that trade unions are circumscribed in a particular way because of the immunities that the Government say are given to trade unions.

Mr. Gummer: I am following the hon. Gentleman's case perfectly well, but I do not understand why he feels that having an election alters the balance of industrial power. I understand his argument, which is a fair one, about whether trade unions should be asked to follow a particular method of voting, but how does it alter the balance of industrial power to have elections for the main executive committee?

Mr. Blair: It alters it in the way that the Government have laid down. Most people would accept that an employer gains if a trade union is weak. The proposed form of electoral procedure imposed and enforced upon every trade union will enmesh trade unions in legal battles and cause them administrative obstacles. That will weaken their ability to pursue the industrial interests of their members. That is why it is important that one does not divorce the type of procedure that the Government have laid down from the way that trade union members seek to run trade unions.
Many groups, including many professional groups, have told the Government that they disagree strongly with the type of procedure that the Government have laid down. The Secretary of State asked whether the Opposition could give any examples of circumstances in which the legislative procedure may be wrong or unfair, or whether there could be another way of doing things. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman two examples. The first is where there are indirect elections to a principal executive committee. There would be a direct election to the regional committee, and the regional committee would nominate people for the principal executive committee. Most trade unionists whom I know are perfectly happy with that type

of election. It is democratic. It was considered democratic, yet under the Bill the trade unionists would be prevented from having that procedure.
My second example is that the many professional groups would like their delegates to go to an annual delegate conference that would elect the principal executive committee. Those people believe that that is the best way of doing things. They run their own organisation and have the appropriate experience. They say that that is the way in which they want to proceed. How can the Government say that that is a wrong, undemocratic or unprincipled way of doing things? Surely those people should be able to decide. If the members decide on a particular procedure, let them make up their own minds. If they decide that they want to do it in the Government's way, under the new clause they have the power to do that. Whatever the majority decide will be implemented. The Government's proposal is fundamentally undemocratic. They also assume that their type of democracy is the only type that one can have.

Mr. Mikardo: That is undoubtedly so. I ask my hon. Friend to consider another illustration. The Conservative party, like the Labour party, is unwilling to depart from electing its members to the House through individual constituencies. I think that both are right to believe that. It is desirable that an hon. Member should have an electoral area to which he is accountable and that the people in the area should have an identified Member who is accountable to them. The proposal in the Bill is equivalent to electing hon. Members on a list system, as in some other countries, where the whole nation votes for a list and not for individuals. We reject that system, because it destroys accountability. That is the weakness of the Government's case.

Mr. Blair: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. I should like to emphasise his point. All that we ask from the Government is that they attempt to draw upon the experience of trade unions over many years and at least try to let us all profit by it. If people feel that a certain way of doing things is right for their trade union, unless there is a good reason for a change—we have heard none — why should we change that because the Government wish to impose their own legislative procedure?
I gave an example of professional groups. I think that many of them might oppose the Government's legislation for reasons that are not connected with those given by the Labour party but are directly and solely connected with the fact that they feel that their own system of managing their trade union affairs is the way that they prefer.
Because the new clause gives the lie to the Government's claim that they will give the unions back to their members, it is important to stress all the time the basis upon which the matter was put to the electorate and upon which it is being put now. If the Government are seeking a case for a mandate, that mandate must be on the basis that trade union members will be given greater control over their individual trade unions. The new clause makes us appreciate that that is not so. This is the real reason why the procedure is being introduced. It will enmesh the trade unions in a web of disputes and difficulties about their elections. In other words, it will ensure that, rather than looking after the interests of their


members, trade unions will become embroiled in legal conundrums that have nothing to do with the basic purposes of the trade union movement.
The Secretary of State hinted that some of us in the Opposition with legal experience are somehow disqualified from speaking on the Bill. With great respect, we are too qualified to do so. The tragedy is that there will be no better people than lawyers to speak on trade union matters after the Bill is passed. I do not want it, but it will be a direct result of the Government's legislation.
When we vote on the new clause, the true division will not be between those who support the Bill and those who do not. As we march through the Lobbies, the true division will be between real democrats and centralisers.

Mr. Winnick: Being lectured by the Government on democracy in the trade unions is almost like being lectured on the same subject by the Communist party of the Soviet Union. Most of us recognise that the Conservative party is a very anti-democratic organisation. I am a vice-president of my union. The Secretary of State may argue that not many people turn up at branch meetings, but many more people voted for me in my union—the Association of Professional, Clerical and Computer Staff — than voted for the Minister of State to become chairman of the Conservative party.
If the Conservative party were a democratic organisation and accountable to its members, and if people such as the Minister of State, who I do not believe will remain chairman for long, were elected by the party members, the Government would be in a better and superior position to lecture the Opposition and the trade union movement on democracy. In so many respects the Conservative party is run almost — I shall not say entirely—like the Communist party in the Soviet Union or any other such ruling party.
The leader of the Conservative party is all-powerful. The immediate predecessor is usually not mentioned. He is either in disgrace or in semi-disgrace. Everyone recognises that the party's annual conference is a total farce. Does anyone believe that representatives go to the Tory party conference to decide policy? Of course not. It is all stage-managed from beginning to end.
I listened with interest to the experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). In my union, elections are held not every four or five years but annually. With regard to accountability, at the end of April I shall go with my colleagues on the executive to our annual conference, where we shall submit a report on our activities. Every section of our annual report to conference is subject to scrutiny and can be referred back. We are accountable for all our activities during the past 12 months and are elected each year.
The Conservative party — certainly the present Government—is inspired by spite and malice against the trade union movement. One example is the banning of trade unions at Cheltenham, which was hardly a democratic decision. There was not a ballot so that the members could decide whether they wanted to remain in their respective unions. The Government gave a diktat. The union members had to give up their membership if they wanted to work at Cheltenham. That was not an illustration, I suppose, of the Government's commitment

to any form of democracy—[AN HON. MEMBER: "The union members were bribed as well."] Of course, that is true.
I understand that the TUC general council is now considering whether it should ask the International Labour Office whether what the Government are doing is a breach of ILO conventions Nos. 87 and 98 on freedom of association. That is an important point.
We have argued about eastern Europe. Unlike Conservative Members, we do so out of a genuine commitment to democracy. One of our points is that, by and large, trade unions in eastern Europe are almost like company unions. They are state-run. For example, in Poland it was clear that the overwhelming majority of ordinary working people decided that they wanted to belong to a genuine trade union. Good luck to them. People should have that right, be it in Poland or Cheltenham. Surely trade unions in our own country should have the right to detennine how to run their affairs. If it is argued that that is all very well but the Government must set guidelines, the fact remains that trade unions are among the most democratic institutions in Britain.
It has been asked of one Conservative Member whether democracy prevails in stockbroking, and we have been told that that is irrelevant. Many institutions in Britain are not run democratically. Mr. Rupert Murdoch owns many newspapers and is not accountable to anyone. He has immense power over the lives of many people who work in his press empire. What democracy exists in the Murdoch set-up? Is there any suggestion that the Government are to make the City, industry or mass communications more democratic? Are they to be subject to Bills such as this? I do not pretend for a moment—no active trade unionist would—that trade unions are without blemishes. However, trade unions have always been run on democratic lines.
When Conservative Members have been pressed to name a trade union—that is all that we ask—in which there are not elections for the executive, they have not been able to do so. Unlike the Conservative party and its front organisations, and unlike the City and the press, trade unions are subject to democratic elections. No one has suggested that what happens in my union—for example, over elections—is not democratic.
It might be, as the Secretary of State has argued, that not enough people attend branch meetings, but it is not possible to force people to attend them, any more than it is possible to force them to vote in any other system. As much as two thirds of the electorate might not vote in local government elections in some parts of the country. Is that an argument for abolishing local democracy? At least one third of the electorate never vote in parliamentary elections? Does that mean that we are not democratically elected? Therefore, when we consider what happens in trade unions, we should consider other environments in which it is difficult to get people to exercise their right to vote. The Minister is muttering. If he wishes to intervene, I shall give way.
New clause 1 provides an opportunity, if the Government are willing to take it, to see what trade unionists want. Let them decide what system of internal elections they want. It is not part of my argument that the proposed form of internal election is wrong in itself any more than it is part of the argument advanced by my right


hon. and hon. Friends. Our argument is that trade unions, being independent organisations, should be able to decide how they want to run their affairs.
Perhaps I might again use the illustration of my union, which is typical of many others. We have a rules revision conference every four or five years. We are having such a conference this year, and about 80 motions and amendments have been tabled. They deal with the union's internal affairs and represent all types of suggestions. There will be a vote at conference accordingly. What is wrong with that? It is wrong for the Government to dictate that all unions must behave in a certain way when conducting their internal elections. That is what is undemocratic.
In view of the Government's majority, new clause 1 will fail and the Bill's basic provisions will become law. Many laws have been directed against trade unions. Indeed, almost from the beginning, trade unions had to act in a semi-illegal way. This year is the 150th anniversary of the Tolpuddle martyrs. I am sure that Conservative Members can have a good sneer about that. They were martyrs because they were denied the right to belong to a trade union and were punished and deported to Australia.
I do not expect Conservative Members to understand or appreciate that each year the martyrdom of those men is commemorated at Dorchester as we have the highest respect for those pioneers of trade unionism who were willing to sacrifice much to establish the type of freedom and democracy of which we are so proud now.
Governments come and go. All the laws that were so hateful to the trade union movement have passed away—often as a result of many years of campaigning—but the trade union movement prevailed in the end. Many of us have witnessed that more recently with the Industrial Relations Act 1971. There is no doubt that this Bill will pass away in the same way.
The trade union movement will find that the laws that are offensive to it and undermine the right of working people to be members of a trade union and to organise its internal affairs will pass away. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that after the Minister has been forgotten and the Government have gone the right of working people to run their own affairs in trade unions will be reestablished.

Mr. David Lightbown: So far, the debate has been more to do with the internal affairs of the Conservative party than the matter before us. Not one Opposition Member who has spoken has not spent a considerable time dealing with the Conservative party.
New clause 1 is a simple proposal which enables the membership of a trade union to use their democratic right to elect an executive. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) referred to a colleague asking him which union did not follow such a practice. We object not to the practice but to the method of election. We have all heard about and had evidence of some of the worst practices to be found in some sectors of the trade union movement. I have enormous regard for many people in the trade union movement but I despise those who abuse their privilege and power. The idea of the Bill is simply to ensure that members of unions that do not conduct their affairs democratically should have the opportunity to make them do so.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a point that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have been trying to get information on. If there is one trade union that does not carry out democratic practices and does not elect executive officers and the rest, can we be told which it is, or is the hon. Gentleman engaged in a general smear that is without foundation?

Mr. Lightbown: It would appear that the simple answer is that you should refer immediately to Committee proceedings when the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) told of such incidents. They are recorded.

Mr. Winnick: Which union?

Mr. Lightbown: We all know of meetings that have been arranged in smoke-filled rooms in a remote place at which 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. of the membership has voted, empowering the elected members to cast block votes. The place for the membership to have its say is clearly at the place of work. You cannot suggest that an election by 1, 2, 3 or 4 per cent. of the membership is a democratic election. It is outrageous even to suggest that.
6.30 pm
Under this proposal, the membership will have the opportunity to vote for its executive at least every five years. In Committee we discussed many trade union rules and regulations, and there was no doubt that a number of trade unions would need only a modest adjustment to their rule books to conform to this proposal, while other unions would need a radical review. The fact remains that there is much flexibility within this proposal. It simply says that at the place of work and by secret ballot all the membership will have the opportunity to elect their leaders and representatives at least once every five years.
I find the argument that that principle is incorrect almost laughable. It is horrifying that you should try to defend such a position. Unions have practised the most outrageous restrictive practices in the past and only legislation has stopped that. I do not fall out with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) over the Tolpuddle martyrs and other such people, but the balance of power has changed. The trade union movement has lost its way. It is no longer concerned, as its principal objective, with the pay and working conditions of its members. Its main objectives now are political, while its objectives for its membership are secondary. It is important that those who represent the membership should be accountable to the membership and that once again we have—

Mr. Blair: Would the hon. Gentleman say, with reference to the new clause, why it is wrong with trade unionists deciding by ballot whether they wish to adopt the Government system? If the purpose of the Bill is to make trade union leaders accountable to their members, why not allow the members to decide whether they want the system?

Mr. Lightbown: It seems to me that the proposal that you are putting—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has two or three times drawn me into this argument, and I should rather be left out of it.

Mr. Winnick: I do not blame you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lightbown: I apologise profusely, Mr. Speaker.
How the membership elects the leadership is clearly defined in the Bill. In Committee, we had many examples, as we did on Second Reading, of unions electing officers on low polls. There is no earthly reason why any member of a trade union should take exception to these rules. I feel sure that the majority of the rank and file of the trade union movement will welcome the proposal.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House how the Bill will guarantee that there will be bigger turnouts in elections after the Bill has been passed than there were before?

Mr. Lightbown: The simple answer is that there could hardly be less of a turnout than before. There is no guarantee. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) may have been right when he said that there are a number of activists in the trade union movement and the majority of people are apathetic. If that is the case, so be it. That is not a problem for us. We have to ensure that trade union members have the opportunity of placing a vote.

Mr. Mikardo: They have that now.

Mr. Lightbown: They have the opportunity to place their vote where the union decides that it will have the meeting, and you all know that there are certain unions—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to me again.

Mr. Blair: Will the hon. Gentleman answer a specific question? As I understand it, the British Medical Association elects most of its principal executive by an annual delegate conference. It desires to do it that way and there is no evidence to suggest that it desires to do it in any different way. Why should it not be allowed to do it in the way that it wishes?

Mr. Lightbown: When the Government are dealing with legislation such as this it is certain that there will be organisations that will come into the parameters, and will have to decide whether they wish to continue with their present articles. This is clear, and a number of peripheral subjects were clearly defined in response to the question of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) in Committee when these matters were discussed.
In response to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), I am convinced that there will be a substantial increase in the membership voting for its executive, but there is no guarantee that it will be increased. However, if there is no increase, that will be the responsibility of the members from that point on, because we shall be giving them the opportunity to vote at their place of work rather than having to vote in a remote location nominated by the trade union leadership. That has denied many members the opportunity to vote in the past.

Mr. Mikardo: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me of one trade union in which the location of branch meetings is laid down by the executive or any central officers of the union and is not decided by the membership of branches?

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I shall not answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo).
I regard this afternoon's debate with mixed feelings. There is some satisfaction in the fact that we have heard from Conservative Members who took little part in the

discussion in Committee. Those of us who have been members of the Committee cannot help feeling that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) has delighted us in a way that we would have anticipated, and we look forward to many more of his contributions later on.

Mr. Lightbown: I thank the hon. Member.

Mr. Fatchett: We feel some sadness that it is only late in the afternoon that the Under-Secretary of State for Employment has joined the debate. In Committee, he embellished and enlivened our understanding of trade unionism to such an extent that the word "GMBATU" is now on the lips of all trade union members and all readers of The Guardian diary. It is a great pleasure for all of us that he has come to offer advice and guidance to the Minister when he winds up on this new clause.

Mr John Smith: He is the best of the Ministers.

Mr. Winnick: He has such a lot of industrial experience.

Mr. Fatchett: Throughout our deliberations in Committee, the Government argued that part I of the Bill will give a trade union back to its members — a mistaken argument, of course, because the trade union has never been taken away from its members. New clause 1 gives the members the opportunity to pass judgment on the Government's imposed model of trade union democracy.
I listened with interest to the speeches of Conservative Members, and I have not yet found one that opposed new clause 1. The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) spent a good deal of time talking about the current dispute in the coal industry, confusing part II with part I of the Bill. If he had participated more often in our Committee deliberations, he might not have made that simple mistake. When he spoke about the National Union of Mineworkers, the hon. Gentleman did not say that there was a more than 80 per cent. turnout of the union when the current president of the union was elected. Nor did he say that the turnout at the election of the Yorkshire president of the NUM was more than 70 per cent. He gave no good reason why NUM members, or indeed other trade union members, should not be allowed to ballot on whether they wanted the Government's model to be imposed on their trade union.
The only argument the hon. Member for Elmet used was to suggest that somehow, if the ballot took place and came up with what presumably would be the wrong result from the point of view of the union leadership. that leadership would defy and deny the result of that ballot. If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he has failed to read part I, which would give any aggrieved member of a trade union the opportunity to take that trade union and its leadership to court. So new clause 1 would not just present the opportunity to ballot on the Government model but would provide the opportunity in part I for any aggrieved member who felt that his union had not gone along with the result of a ballot to take it to court.

Mr. Batiste: I said that new clause I was, in effect, a wide-ranging contracting-out clause. I said that it was clear from the current action in the mining industry that there are some trade union leaders who, unless there is a clear legislative underpinning of basic democratic rights,


will abuse the constitutions and manipulate them to achieve their own ends and to defy the wishes of their members.

Mr. Fatchett: I find that argument particularly surprising. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that the NUM leadership would deny the outcome of the ballot? Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Batiste: I find it inconceivable that the NUM executive has not called a national ballot of all its members to decide whether to strike. Without that basic commitment to democracy in the NUM, which has been held out as a paragon of virtue, it is much more important for the Government to ensure that minimum requirements are laid down by law.

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman's confusion suggests that he does not understand the difference between part I and part II and that he is not prepared to answer my question. I can only conclude that he does not believe that the NUM leadership would defy a ballot result. In those circumstances, I imagine that the hon. Member for Elmet will join us in the Lobby to vote for new clause 1.
I also expect the hon. Members for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) and for Staffordshire, South-East to support new clause 1, because neither has made an argument substantial enough to suggest that it is incorrect to put the Government's model to the trade union membership. Indeed, if I understood the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford correctly, he said that his only objection to new clause 1 was that it was a once-for-all ballot. He somehow felt that the Government's model was cheapened if it did not go to the union membership. He was right to say that, and I hope that he will find it possible to support us in the Lobby.
6.45 pm
The Government tonight must be acutely embarrassed. They are denying trade union members the opportunity to cast their votes and put forward their views on the Government's model. Why are the Government frightened of that ballot? Why are they running away from that ballot? Is it because their model is defective? Is it because their model does not take account of the history, organisation and structure of the trade union movement? Or is it because, as we know from our debates in Committee, Conservative Members are not keen to encourage trade union democracy? When we suggested that we should impose an obligation on employers in the Government's model to give a mandatory right to trade unions to hold a ballot at the place of work, Conservative Members opposed it, although all the evidence shows that workplace ballots produce a larger turnout.
The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East said that the answer to the problem was a workplace ballot. If he reads part I, he will see that the Government model imposes no mandatory obligation on employers to allow a workplace ballot. I should be much more convinced of his commitment to democracy if he were to table an amendment along the lines that I am suggesting to make workplace ballots mandatory and thus make large turnouts possible. However, the hon. Gentleman has not done so.

I can only assume that, like other Conservative Members, his commitment to democracy is, at best, skin deep and, at worst, very damaging.
We know the extent of the Government's commitment to democracy since the Bill has been published. After our debates on this part of the Bill were over, the Government took away from GCHQ workers at Cheltenham the basic right to belong to a trade union. Perhaps the Government are frightened to put this model to the test because trade unions will recognise the true nature of the Government's views on trade unionism. Trade unionists now know what this Government is about. The mask has fallen away. This is an authoritarian Government who are blatantly committed to a set of anti-trade union policies. They dare not risk a ballot, because they know that trade union members now recognise the reality of Government policies.
I was disappointed by the opening speech of the Secretary of State, because I thought that he, of all people, would go along with new clause 1. It is clear that he has persuaded some of his colleagues to go against that—presumably, not on the basis of intellectual conviction but because they are whipped tonight. The Secretary of State should have used Conservative party policy as a guideline. I should like to quote "The Right Approach" of 1976, which was the first policy document on this subject to be produced by the Conservative party under its current leadership — that is, the person who makes up the electorate of the chairman of the Conservative party. What the document said is, in fact, the intellectual foundation of new clause 1.
I am surprised that Conservative Members have not read "The Right Approach". We know from the Under-Secretary's comments in Committee that election manifestos produced by political parties are not to be taken seriously, but a policy document produced halfway through a Parliament must be taken seriously—certainly one that was produced almost immediately after the election of a new leader. That policy document said:
The main desire for improvement in the democratic procedures must come from the members themselves.
The right approach is new clause 1, because it would allow the members to decide whether the Government's arbitrary authoritarian model was the most appropriate for their trade union.
Judging from Second Reading and Committee debates, other Conservative Members should be supporting new clause 1 tonight. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is not with us—

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): I rise only to correct a small error that the hon. Gentleman made. It was not my advice that the manifesto should not be read. I said that the notes on guidance for speakers are seldom read by candidates.

Mr. Fatchett: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should say that. One has noticed his almost total reliance upon civil servants on certain occasions. It means that he clearly relied on briefs in those circumstances.
The hon. Member for Langbaurgh has no doubts; he is not the sort of individual to entertain doubts. On Second Reading he said:
Every trade union leader has had the opportunity to organise some kind of ballot among the members to prove that the Government's proposals are wrong". — [Official Report, 8 November 1983; Vol. 48, c. 221.]


New clause 1 would allow the Government to impose that ballot and give us the opportunity to argue that the Government's proposals are wrong. It would also give Ministers and Conservative Members the opportunity to argue that their proposals are correct.
The involvement in Committee of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) seemed to decline almost coincidentally with his publicity as a result of the "Panorama" programme. His absence today may well be a further sign that the Minister has put the hon. Gentleman under wraps. On Second Reading he said that the majority of trade unionists would support the legislation. Who could be more persuasive? Anybody who saw the hon. Gentleman on "Panorama" will know how much in touch he is with rank and file trade unionists. His word should be good enough for Conservative Members. It is certainly good enough in other circumstances for the Minister of State. I should have thought that Conservative Members would say that they are confident enough in the proposals, that they want to put them to trade union members and that they want to give them a ballot.
The Secretary of State concluded by saying that the Labour party was trying to deny trade unionists the right to vote. If the Government vote against new clause 1, it is they who are denying trade unionists the right to vote. It is they in their arrogance who are imposing upon trade unions a model which has not been tested, which is defective, and they dare not put it to trade union members. It would be an escape from democracy. It would be an abdication of responsibility.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that when the House passes legislation which affects any minority group we should say to those minority groups, "Look, we are passing this legislation. You can do it if you want to by having a vote amongst your members"?

Mr. Fatchett: In Committee and on Second Reading, Conservative Members made it abundantly clear that their objective was to give the trade unions back to their members. This is an opportunity to do that. If they vote against new clause 1 tonight they will be denying trade unionists a voice and at the same time imposing upon them a defective model. For those reasons, I hope that the House will support new clause 1.

Mr. Gummer: We should start by realising in what circumstances new clause 1 has been tabled. It has been tabled in response to the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, we should look back on the genesis of this new clause. If the Labour party had a long record of giving trade unionists the opportunity to decide whether they wanted a democratic system, if we had had a series of trade union Bills which included that opportunity, I should have been happier about the proposition that this new clause is in defence of democracy. The Labour party did introduce a number of trade union Bills—we are not talking about batting numbers — but in none was there very much discussion about democracy. That appeared only in the ill-fated "In Place of Strife". I should have been happier if it had arisen from a party which when it was in power had on occasion shown itself concerned to give such an opportunity to trade union members.
I fear that the reason for the new clause is simply that Labour Members, faced with the uneasy situation in which they have voted against democracy on every occasion that has arisen in Committee, decided that they ought to have

some excuse. The excuse that they have provided for themselves is that there should be one opportunity for one man to vote once. That is the proposition that is enshrined in the new clause. It is not that there should be a continuing opportunity. It is not that the minority should have some rights as well. There is no possibility of somebody in the future perhaps having a new look at it. There is the opportunity to vote once in order to avoid the charge, which is otherwise all too readily sustained, that, when it comes down to it in vote after vote in Committee, Labour Members have tried to stop trade unionists having a right to decide secretly, equally and conveniently who should run their union.
The difficulty is that if we are not careful the argument will polarise. On the one hand there are those Conservative Members who ignore the real point that has been put forward by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) which, I hope he will allow me to say—I do not mean to be flattering—was clearly put. He said, simply, that there was no objection to democracy in principle. The objection really was that somebody from outside was insisting upon, first, democracy and, secondly, democracy of a particular kind for trade unions. That as I understand it is the proposition that has been put forward
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) seems to think that I have not understood it. If he does not accept what I say in one of my milder moods, perhaps he will be even less willing to do so when I come to deal with his speech. I understood the hon. Member for Sedgefield to make the sensible and clear point that he really objected to the fact that the Government were telling the trade unionists how they should run their elections and imposing upon them a particular method. I think that we can agree that that is one part of what the hon. Gentleman said. In those circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to say that if it were not for the history of 60 years in which, year after year, we were told that trade unions would find a way out of their difficulties themselves, if it were not for the fact that many Conservative Members have gone up and down the country saying to those who demanded that there should be such legislation that the change would take place internally, trade unions would make their decisions because in general they were sensible people who would produce a democratic answer which would differ from one place to another—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman May not know this. He is not a member of the Conservative party and has not listened to the constituency debate that we have had on this matter. That has always been my position. I made it clear at the beginning of the Bill.
I am sorry that we have had to introduce the Bill at all. Ideally, the trade unions would have reformed themselves and then we would not have been in this position. The difference between us on this particular point is simply that the hon. Gentleman says that democracy is a good thing, but he would like to see it more widely expressed, with a wider interpretation, so that the trade unions would be left to make their own decisions on what is democratic.
If there had been a sign that GMBATU was moving away from branch elections, in which the minority scoops the pool, or that something was being done in even small unions which Opposition Members think it peculiar to quote—[Interruption.] About 3,500 people owe their living to the closed shop arrangement of the Film Artistes Association, but for Opposition Members those people do not count. Nevertheless they are members of a union,


which is part of the Trades Union Congress. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) will agree that if his case is to be upheld he must point out major advances towards democracy that have been carried out in trade unions other than the EETPU and the AUEW during the past 10 years.

7 pm

Mr. Blair: I am delighted that the Minister has so graciously understood one part of my argument, but he has not replied to the kernel of the argument. Does he accept that if the new clause is rejected and the Bill is passed trade union members will not be allowed to decide their system of election, and that even if trade union members decided that they wished to retain their present form of election they would be unable to do so?

Mr. Gummer: I do not accept that. Trade union members will not be allowed to decide to have elections which are not secret, convenient or equal — in other words, elections which offend against the minimum basis of democracy. I am happy to answer the only valid bit of the argument, not least because the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) put it clearly and reasonably, which is whether it is reasonable to exclude indirect elections. That refers to the nature of the election arrangement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an important point when he opened the debate. He asked clearly which condition—the secrecy, the equality or the convenience of the ballot—hon. Members wanted to give unions the chance to opt out of. Which condition is wrong?

Mr. Mikardo: I am obliged to the Minister for giving way, but does he realise the significance of his remarks? The new clause calls for a vote by union members to decide whether they want to have the provisions in part I. If they decide that they do not want them, the Minister would be right in saying that it was a once-for-all vote. However, if they decided that they did want the provisions, there would be many votes. As the Minister describes this as a demand for a once-for-all vote, is he not assuming that, given a free choice, union members would reject part I?

Mr. Gummer: Certainly not. The hon. Gentleman missed the first part of my argument. The Labour party wants one vote, on one occasion. The reason for the amendment is not a new-found love of democracy in the Labour party, because there is no such history. Of the number of trade union reform Bills produced by the Labour party, none contained democratic provisions. The Labour party proposes the new clause from sheer funk. It has become so embarrassed by the fact that it has voted every time against democracy and a secret, convenient and equal ballot that it wants an excuse to say that it voted for democracy once. That is the only reason for the new clause. The hon. Member for Truro is the one hon. Member who, with perfectly reasonable credentials, brought forward an argument which must be discussed seriously. I hope that we shall be allowed to do that at the appropriate time.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said how remarkable branch meetings were. He asked why unions should not have votes at branch meetings and said that it was perfectly democratic to have them. I realise that

he is slightly embarrassed about branch meetings. He will not expect me to make my speech without referring to that and I shall not disappoint him. He is embarrassed because nearly half the branches of his union did not meet to vote and did not send in a single vote—even one branch secretary failed to send in their votes. The other branches managed to make up an electorate which was 2 per cent. of the total union membership.

Mr. Frank Haynes: The Minister says that in his sleep.

Mr. Gummer: I might say that in my sleep because it is as true in my sleep as in my waking hours. If the hon. Gentleman said it in his sleep, he would perhaps support the Government.
Branch elections do not produce a democratic answer. The TUC's training manual for representatives confirms that. It states:
Most members don't go regularly to union branch meetings. Many members find it hard to get out for evening meetings, and if the branch covers more than one workplace, then members may not feel directly involved in a lot of the business.
The Trades Union Congress is quite right. That is the nature of the branch meeting and it does not provide a democratic forum for elections. There is nothing wrong with branch meetings, but they are the wrong place to see what representation branch members want.
If the Labour party says that unions should have the right to opt out of simple democratic minima, as set out in the Bill, it is saying that the majority of trade union members should deny the minority, if they were so to vote, the right to vote secretly, conveniently and equally. That should never be open to an organisation with special privileges, such as the trade unions.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield rightly said that I suggested that a reason for the legislation was the immunity accorded to trade unions. I did so not because it is contrary to the claim that the members should control the union but because it is concomitant with that claim. If one gives immunity, one gives immunity not to a small, group elected by even smaller groups at branch meetings but to all union members so that the union can function. Therefore, an integral part of immunity is that it should not be given to a small eclectic group, but to all members. Part and parcel of receiving that immunity should be the right to vote.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) rightly talked of the irrelevance of many of the Opposition arguments. It may be that the hon. Member for Walsall, North dislikes the constitution of the Conservative party, but the Conservative party does not like him. The Conservative party hopes that one day, for the benefit of the nation, he will be thrown out on his ear. However, the Bill is not about the Conservative party but about a series of organisations that receive an immunity, which is denied to the Conservative party, the Labour party and other organisations. If an organisation has such immunity and is allowed protection which no one else has, the least that can be demanded of it is that it gives its members a secret, equal and convenient vote. That seems to be perfectly acceptable.

Mr. Winnick: It will be to the benefit of the nation if I remain here for many years. Does the Minister of State realise that if the Conservative party were democratic, his arguments would carry more credibility? But no one elected him as chairman of the Conservative party. He was


appointed by one person. Does he agree that the Conservative party's annual conference is stage-managed from beginning to end and that ordinary members of the party have no say in the appointment of their leader, the party chairman or any other national official?

Mr. Gummer: I have refreshed my mind about the long title of the Bill. Much as I should like to have a long discussion with the hon. Gentleman about the fallacies of what he said about the Conservative party, I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order if I did so.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North has admitted what the whole Labour party has to admit. The Opposition do not have an answer to the Bill. Their only argument is cheap political propaganda. The hon. Gentleman is uniquely adept at that, although it is the only thing at which he is adept. No wonder he has turned up for this debate. He takes every opportunity to use his unique ability which the citizens of Croydon, South caught on to rather quicker than have the citizens of Walsall, North.
The hon. Member for Truro said that his amendment was a modest proposal. I am sure that he would not like me to refer to the parallel of a more famous modest proposal. The hon. Gentleman asked why we could not give his amendment a fair wind and I shall explain why we do not find that possible.
If, over many years, the whole trade union movement had been moving towards a more democratic structure and there were a spirit abroad in the trade union movement stressing that that was the direction in which it ought to go, and if the leaders had been bending their shoulders to produce an answer to meet the minima proposed in the Bill, the "modest proposal" of the hon. Member for Truro would have considerable merit.
However, I am worried about cases in which, say, 52 per cent. of union members voted against our proposed changes and 48 per cent. voted in favour. I do not believe that it would be reasonable for the minority to be denied the right of democratic participation. In the same way, I should be unhappy if the people of Truro decided that elections there should be held in a different way from elections in the rest of the country and they removed the right of secrecy, equality and convenience.
Furthermore, I do not believe that there is anything so evil in asking for secrecy, equality and convenience that the proposal of the hon. Member for Truro should stand. There is a reasonable argument about direct and indirect elections, and that is where I pray in aid the trend in the trade union movement. If we had seen that indirect elections were generally a bastion of democracy throughout the trade union movement, I should feel happier about the hon. Gentleman's amendment. Unfortunately, there are so many examples of indirect elections being the means to deny democracy rather than extend it that we cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's "modest proposal".
The hon. Member for Sedgefield made an interesting point when he said that the Government's proposals on democracy alter the balance of industrial power. Evidently, secret votes, convenient votes and equal votes alter the balance of industrial power. The hon. Gentleman knows that all his talk about discussions in the courts, vast numbers or objections and so on are so much nonsense.
7·15 pm
That was the second little argument used to try to cover the nakedness of the Labour party's opposition to democracy. First, they tried to cover their nakedness by promising democracy, once and for all. Secondly, they are trying to suggest that the system would be so complicated that we cannot allow people secrecy, equality and convenience.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) objected to my references to rotten boroughs. My only comparison was that the defence of rotten boroughs was almost exactly the same as the defence that we have heard of the existing systems in the trade union movement—inconvenience, people did not want to change, and so on. No doubt the eight electors of Dunwich in my constituency, who used to elect two Members of Parliament, would have said that they wanted to carry on with the existing system. The Opposition's argument is not acceptable.
The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fate hen), who delighted us in Committee with his stiletto wit, made a point that I found difficult to understand. He said that our proposals were arbitrary and authoritarian. But what is arbitrary about asking for a secret ballot? What is authoritarian about asking for everyone to have an equal vote? Why should we not ensure that ordinary trade union members have a vote?
My hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) and Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) were right when they said that the problem with all our debates on the Bill is that the Opposition's arguments are not arguments of principle or sense; they are arguments that seek to hide the fact that their paymasters do not want democracy.

Mr. Evans: The Minister of State said that the genesis of the new clause was the fact that the Opposition had voted against democracy at every stage in Committee. That is not true. The second amendment moved by the Opposition in Committee, while in a different form from the new clause—otherwise, the new clause would not have been selected for debate — would have had a similar impact.
Throughout the Committee stage, the Opposition argued not against secret ballots, the right to vote or the principle of voting at a convenient time and place but for the right of free trade unions in a democratic society to adopt and adapt their methods as those unions develop. That has been our principal argument throughout.
I am sure that the Minister of State will agree that his speech was not one of his better efforts. He mentioned again the immunities enjoyed by trade unions. Surely even the Minister of State, after 37 sittings of the Committee, should recognise that immunities—if it is correct to say that trade unions enjoy immunities—have nothing to do with the election of members to executive committees. We shall, of course, be referring to immunities in part II of the Bill. I am sure that even the hon. Gentleman recognises by now that immunities have nothing to do with election to executive committees.
The Minister of State asked what is wrong with requesting secret ballots. The Government are not asking for secret ballots; they are dictating that certain forms shall be adopted. The Tory party is the last organisation in the world to issue diktats about democracy to anyone.
The Secretary of State welcomed newcomers to the Report stage of the Bill. He was by far the most distinguished newcomer to the Bill, because he knows as well as every other member of the Committee that we scarcely saw him in Committee. We saw him briefly at the first and last sittings and on one other occasion when he was dragged there in the middle of the night. The right hon. Gentleman is the last person to talk about welcoming anyone to proceedings on the Bill.
The Secretary of State said that he would give a small prize to any hon. Member who said something new. We all expected him to announce that he had won the prize for saying something new. Unfortunately, he made it clear that he simply does not understand the Bill that he has presented to the House and that he has not even read the Committee report.
The Secretary of State repeatedly made the canard that the purpose of the Bill was to give the unions back to their members. Ministers and Tory Back Benchers have continued to repeat the canard that the unions would be given back to their members. By constant repetition of the phrase, they hope that it will not be noticed that the unions already belong to their members, and to no one else. The British trade union movement has a long, proud history of ensuring, to the best of its ability, that its members are well looked after and catered for.
Throughout the first day on Report not one shred of evidence has been given to justify part I of the Bill. Speaking as a member of the AUEW engineering section, I am in favour of electing all trade union officers. That is the position in my union, although I point out that it is not the position under the Bill. My union has a long and proud record of electing all its officers—not only for the past 10 years, as the Minister of State implied, but since its inception. That position, established by the founding fathers of the union, has been amended and shaped by successive generations of members without interference by, or diktat of, central Government or any other organisation.
That method of election was frequently sanctimoniously applauded by Tory Ministers, but it is not necessarily true that every trade union should accept the method adopted by the AUEW. It is worth pointing out to the Government, and to Conservative Back Benchers, that the AUEW is the second largest trade union in the country and by far the biggest union in the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. Despite the fact that the AUEW is large, that its methods are well-known, and that every trade unionist who takes an interest in trade union activities knows how the AUEW's structure works and how it elects its members, there is no evidence that any other union, or any other group of union members, has ever sought to adopt the AUEW method. The truth is that most craft unions in the country adopt the method of electing their officers, whereas most general unions have a different method of electing or, in many cases, of appointing their officers. What they have in common is that they elect their principal executive committees. They do this in a variety of different ways because of the historical background of each trade union in Great Britain.
I do not intend to trace the backgrounds of the trade unions that make up the trade union movement in this country. However, it is fair to point out that no complaints have been made anywhere about the structure, formation

and operation of the method of electing principal executive committees of trade unions in Great Britain. No complaints have been made by any employers' organisations. If that had been the case, the Minister of State would have quoted them ad nauseam in Committee.
Until recently, no complaints have been made by political parties. Notwithstanding anything that has been said from the Conservative Benches, this issue did not feature largely during the general election campaign. I suggest that Conservative Members did not mention to any group of electors in Great Britain that a Conservative Government would alter the laws relating to the election of executive committees. More important, no complaints have been made by any group of trade union members—not even Conservative trade union associations—and there have been no resolutions from branches or districts to the executive council or to the annual conference. No debates have taken place at union conferences on this issue suggesting that the method should be changed. No letters have been written to The Times or to the Daily Telegraph, or, more appropriately, to any trade union journals by any group of members demanding changes along the lines suggested in the Bill.
Many opportunities have arisen for the membership of unions to raise the issue. Apart from union conferences, resolutions from branches and letters to trade union journals, a number of amalgamations have taken place in the last 15 to 20 years. In that period, the number of unions affiliated to the TUC has been reduced from approximately 180 to 100. A major issue on amalgamation is how many officers there should be, how the officers should be elected, and where they should serve. In the course of amalgamation, the issue as to whether officers should be elected or appointed is subject to debate within the trade unions concerned. The answer is that such issues are never raised in any major way. The proposed amalgamation between the engineering section of the AUEW and the TASS section of the AUEW broke down on the issue of the election of full-time officials. Notwithstanding anything that was said about amalgamation in the journals of both organisations, I can recall no demand from the TASS membership that its executive committee should be appointed or elected by the same method as that adopted by the AUEW engineering section. No complaints have been made by the trade union membership. That should be put on record to nail the lie that there is widespread demand in the trade union movement for the changes outlined in the Bill.
What right has any political party in a democratic society to force free trade unions to accept a framework for which the trade union members have not asked? That issues lies at the heart of the debate.
7.30 pm
The Tory party is on the slippery slope to an east European-type anti-democratic, authoritarian, corporate state. Do not Poland, Solidarity and General Jaruzelski spring to mind when we debate the free trade union movement and how it elects it officers in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Gummer: Can the hon. Gentleman say when General Jaruzelski asked for secret ballots, convenient ballots and equal ballots? When he can say that, he can make the comparison.

Mr. Evans: In Poland, the trade unions wanted the freedom and the right to settle their own affairs in their


own way. The Tory party wept buckets of hypocritical tears about the trade union movement in Poland, yet it is imposing shackles upon the British free trade union movement. That is the truth.
There are some other worrying authoritarian aspects of the Government, who are led by a narrow-minded Prime Minister. Did not the 1980 and 1982 trade union measures shackle the trade union movement? The rate-capping Bill is before the House. Do not the Government intend to abolish the metropolitan counties? Do they not intend to stop the 1985 county elections—information just leaked to us?
What about the abolition of trade unionism from GCHQ? Employees there were not allowed a ballot on whether they wished to continue to belong to a trade union. The right to belong was simply removed. What about the gaoling of Sarah Tisdall? That is a disgrace to any democratic society. What about this latest Trade Union Bill?
All those matters have one thing in common—the aim of the Tory party is to punish, cripple or silence opposition. That is the slippery slope. All this comes from a Tory party whose record on internal democracy is a farce. What right has a political party to dictate to any other organisation about its internal democratic procedures when it has no democracy itself? Who elects the Tory party's executive committee? Who decides the Tory party conference arrangements? Who examines its national accounts? Most important, who elects the Tory party chairman?
The Minister said that he hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North, (Mr. Winnick) would be thrown out. I remind the Minister that my hon. Friend's constituents will decide whether he remains in the House, but only one person will decide whether the Minister continues in office. By all accounts he will not be in office much longer.
What next? What will be the Government's next action against the trade unions? The Government now say to the trade unions, "This is how you will conduct your elections". Will the Government next dictate how unions elect or appoint their officials? Will they tell unions how to organise their conferences? Will they dictate how unions submit wage claims and how much they will be? Will they tell us who can and who cannot stand for union office?
What is the difference between those questions and the Bill's provisions? The Government are laying down how unions shall conduct themselves internally. To suggest that the Bill is intended to give unions back to their members is an affront to anyone's intelligence.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said, the purpose of part I is to create a charter for chaos and to try, through internal battles, to turn trade unions away from their proper job of looking after their members' interests. The new clause would put responsibility and power where they belong — in the membership's hands. Members should decide how to run their affairs, not politicians—especially Tory politicians.
What are the Government so afraid of? The Secretary of State informed us that a MORI poll showed that 83 per cent. of trade union membership want to elect full-time officers in the way devised by the Government. If so, why is the Secretary of State so afraid of accepting new clause 1 and allowing members to decide how they should elect

their principal executive committees? The members know the issues, so they should be allowed to decide whether to change.
The truth is that the new clause calls the Government's bluff. It is nonsense to say that the Government want to give the unions back to their members. Anyone who believes in democracy recognises that a free trade union movement is one of the bastions of democracy. Any Government supporter who believes in that democracy should come into the Lobby with us tonight and vote for new clause 1.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 272.

Division No. 201]
[7.36 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Anderson, Donald
Fisher, Mark


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Flannery, Martin


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashton, Joe
Foster, Derek


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Foulkes, George


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Barnett, Guy
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Barron, Kevin
Garrett, W. E.


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
George, Bruce


Bell, Stuart
Godman, Dr Norman


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Gourlay, Harry


Bermingham, Gerald
Hardy, Peter


Bidwell, Sydney
Harman, Ms Harriet


Blair, Anthony
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Boyes, Roland
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Home Robertson, John


Buchan, Norman
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Caborn, Richard
Hoyle, Douglas


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Janner, Hon Greville


Clarke, Thomas
John, Brynmor


Clay, Robert
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Coleman, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Litherland, Robert


Corbett, Robin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cowans, Harry
McCartney, Hugh


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McCrea, Rev William


Craigen, J. M.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Crowther, Stan
McGuire, Michael


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dalyell, Tam
McKelvey, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McNamara, Kevin


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McTaggart, Robert


Deakins, Eric
McWilliam, John


Dewar, Donald
Madden, Max


Dobson, Frank
Marek, Dr John


Dubs, Alfred
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Martin, Michael


Eadie, Alex
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Eastham, Ken
Maxton, John


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Ellis, Raymond
Meacher, Michael


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Michie, William


Ewing, Harry
Mikardo, Ian


Fatchett, Derek
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Faulds, Andrew
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)






Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, C,(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Nellist, David
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


O'Brien, William
Soley, Clive


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Spearing, Nigel


Paisley, Rev Ian
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Park, George
Stott, Roger


Patchett, Terry
Strang, Gavin


Pavitt, Laurie
Straw, Jack


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Pike, Peter
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Radice, Giles
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Randall, Stuart
Tinn, James


Redmond, M.
Torney, Tom


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Richardson, Ms Jo
Weetch, Ken


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Welsh, Michael


Robertson, George
White, James


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wigley, Dafydd


Robinson, P. (Belfast E)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Wilson, Gordon


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Sheerman, Barry
Woodall, Alec


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter



Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Mr. Don Dixon and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. James Hamilton.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Chapman, Sydney


Alexander, Richard
Chope, Christopher


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Alton, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ancram, Michael
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Arnold, Tom
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Ashby, David
Clegg, Sir Walter


Ashdown, Paddy
Cockeram, Eric


Aspinwall, Jack
Colvin, Michael


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Conway, Derek


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Coombs, Simon


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Cope, John


Baldry, Anthony
Corrie, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Couchman, James


Batiste, Spencer
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dickens, Geoffrey


Beith, A. J.
Dorrell, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bendall, Vivian
Dover, Den


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Durant, Tony


Berry, Sir Anthony
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Best, Keith
Eggar, Tim


Bevan, David Gilroy
Emery, Sir Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evennett, David


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fallon, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Favell, Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Fletcher, Alexander


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Braine, Sir Bernard
Forman, Nigel


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bright, Graham
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brinton, Tim
Fox, Marcus


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Freeman, Roger


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Freud, Clement


Browne, John
Fry, Peter


Bruinvels, Peter
Galley, Roy


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Buck, Sir Antony
Glyn, Dr Alan


Budgen, Nick
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Burt, Alistair
Goodlad, Alastair


Butcher, John
Gorst, John


Butterfill, John
Gow, Ian


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Grant, Sir Anthony


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Greenway, Harry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gregory, Conal


Carttiss, Michael
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Cartwright, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Grist, Ian





Ground, Patrick
Marlow, Antony


Grylls, Michael
Mather, Carol


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hanley, Jeremy
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hannam, John
Mellor, David


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Merchant, Piers


Harvey, Robert
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hawksley, Warren
Miscampbell, Norman


Hayes, J.
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hayhoe, Barney
Moate, Roger


Hayward, Robert
Montgomery, Fergus


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Heddle, John
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Henderson, Barry
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hickmet, Richard
Moynihan, Hon C.


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Murphy, Christopher


Hind, Kenneth
Neale, Gerrard


Hirst, Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Newton, Tony


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Nicholls, Patrick


Holt, Richard
Norris, Steven


Hooson, Tom
Onslow, Cranley


Hordern, Peter
Oppenheim, Philip


Howard, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Page, John (Harrow W)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Howells, Geraint
Parris, Matthew


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hunter, Andrew
Pawsey, James


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Irving, Charles
Penhaligon, David


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Pink, R. Bonner


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Pollock, Alexander


Johnston, Russell
Porter, Barry


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Powley, John


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Kennedy, Charles
Price, Sir David


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Proctor, K. Harvey


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Raffan, Keith


King, Rt Hon Tom
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kirkwood, Archibald
Rathbone, Tim


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Renton, Tim


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Rhodes James, Robert


Knowles, Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knox, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Lamont, Norman
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lang, Ian
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Latham, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lawler, Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sims, Roger


Lester, Jim
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lightbown, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lilley, Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lyell, Nicholas
Steel, Rt Hon David


McCrindle, Robert
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Macfarlane, Neil
Stokes, John


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stradling Thomas, J.


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Maclean, David John.
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Maclennan, Robert
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


McQuarrie, Albert
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Major, John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Malone, Gerald
Viggers, Peter


Maples, John
Wainwright, R.






Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Walden, George
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Yeo, Tim


Wallace, James
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ward, John



Warren, Kenneth
Tellers for the Noes:


Watts, John
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Wheeler, John
Mr. Michael Neubert.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

SECRET BALLOTS FOR TRADE UNION ELECTIONS

Mr. Penhaligon: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 1, line 10, leave out 'voting'.
Although this amendment is designed to delete only one word, and is hence the shortest on the Notice Paper, one appreciates how significant the removal of a single word can be. The word "voting", which we propose to delete, appears in subsection (1), in which the Government give the definition of those to whom they wish the ballot procedure to apply when electing a union's executive committee. The provision describes the person as
a voting member of the principal executive committee
and therefore, by deleting "voting", the provison would read
who is a member of the principal executive committee.
We make this proposal for a number of reasons, one of which was dealt with in part by the Secretary of State on Second Reading when, questioned about whether the provision would cover those with a casting vote, he gave a clear assurance, as reported at column 159 of the Official Report, that the Bill as drafted would force the procedure on those with casting votes. However, we do not believe that the provision in subsection (1)(a), taken with subsection (7), is all that clear on the subject, and to avoid doubt the House should accept the amendment.
Subsection (7) refers to a person who attends
meetings of the committee and to vote on matters on which votes are taken by the committee (whether or not he is entitled to attend all such meetings or to vote on all such matters or in all circumstances).
Clearly, there is only one circumstance in which a person with a casting vote can use that vote. Therefore, while the Minister's interpretation of the provision may be correct, the amendment would clarify the point beyond doubt.
Important and significant members of the trade union movement would not be covered by the clause as drafted, because executive members without a vote would not need to submit themselves to a ballot of their members. As the Minister will be aware more than most, there is nothing more complicated than ploughing through union rule books. The NUR, NUM and ETU have executive members without a vote and they would not be covered by the procedure in the clause. We see no reason why people as important as Mr. Knapp, Mr. Heathfield and Mr. Chapple should not be subjected to a ballot if the Government believe that all others should be so subjected.
Another matter which concerns us was covered by an amendment that has not been selected — I make no complaint about that—and that would have pointed out that general secretaries, often the best-known figures in unions, are not covered by this procedure. We see no reason why they, too, should not need to be elected to the important posts that they hold.
The main argument for the amendment is that the procedure appears to contain a loophole which could enable those who wish to avoid the impact of this procedure to do so. For example, I understand that if Mr. Scargill were to give up his right to a casting vote on the NUM, or if the rules of that union were changed so that the president did not have a casting vote, there could be no insistence on the holder of that office having to submit himself to election. I cannot believe that that is the intention of the Government. The Government may find that loophole being exploited. Some members of principal executive committees could have their right to a casting vote removed, when they could no longer be subjected to this procedure.
To sum up our case for the amendment, the provision applying to those with casting votes is not clear as the clause is drafted; it seems that some people are not covered when there is no rational reason why they should be excluded; and the Government are permitting a loophole of some significance for those who may wish to benefit from being excluded. We look forward to the Minister's reply, and especially to his explanation why the word "voting" was included in the provision in the first place.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I oppose the amendment because it is clear that Liberal Members, like Conservative Members, know nothing about the way in which an executive committee of a trade union operates. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) would know, if he had knowledge of the way in which local government works, that every council committee meeting is attended by people who, while they do not vote, play a major part in the proceedings. People from the town clerk's department and financial, planning and other officers give legal and other advice when guiding the various committees of the local authority to their decisions.
A similar procedure is followed by executive committees of major trade unions. When we talk about the executive of a union, we are not speaking of a body comprising 16 or 17 people who meet every month in a conference room in, say, London attended by delegates from all over the country. Often, executives meet and split into sub-committees. Unions have sub-committees dealing with property, administration, education and research and many other subjects. Each sub-committee has executive powers and when a decision is made it will probably be approved on the nod at the following meeting of the full executive committee. That is the only way in which an organisation of national importance can operate.
If the members of a union decide that their general secretary shall not have a vote, I see no reason for him to have to be elected. Indeed, there may be reasons why such a union official should not be elected. Many unions regard their general secretaries in the way town clerks are regarded by local authorities. NALGO and other white-collar unions could probably not find general secretaries from among their lay members if there had to be a ballot, for the result of stipulating a ballot would be that only members of the union would be eligible to stand for office.
White-collar unions would not be able to recruit from outside the union. Bearing in mind some of the high salaried professions involved, many people would not be prepared to stand for election as the general secretary of their union because it would entail a drop in salary. There is a chance of recruiting from outside, but the person


appointed would clearly want some security of tenure. That can be provided only if the employing authority—in this case, the executive—can draw up a contract and conditions of employment. That would not be possible under the election system proposed in the amendment.
8 pm
I cite the example of research. If the executive wishes to know, for example, the proportion of women in membership and whether they prefer shift working, part-time or full-time working, more holidays or whatever, the only way to obtain that information is through a good research department. I see no reason why the head of research or his representative should not participate in executive meetings, although he would be excluded from voting after he had imparted his advice to the executive or its sub-committee. The same applies to legal officers. Many head office staff carry the title of assistant general secretary because the wage structure gives them a certain salary, but in fact they are legal officers, accountants and so on. If that were changed, salaries would have to be renegotiated and considerable confusion would arise.
The Government and the Liberals constantly refer to trade unions taking legal advice. They should, therefore, not prevent legal advisers taking part in the executive business of the union. To protect the contract of employment given by the union to a legal officer, a financial officer or a research officer, the union should be able to decide that that person does not have a vote and therefore does not have to stand for election. It is not a matter of being democratic or undemocratic. If we want trade unions to be efficient, in many instances they will have to recruit officers from outside.

Mr. Penhaligon: The hon. Gentleman's comparison with the town clerk is interesting, but so far as I know the town clerk in not a member of the executive committee.

Mr. Martin: When local government reorganisation took place in Scotland, Lord Wheatley put forward the concept that the executive should consist of officials taking decisions, so the hon. Gentleman is wrong, because in many local authorities the officials are involved in decision-making although they are not entitled to vote.

Mr. Richard Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the executive committee should reach its conclusions without any professional advice from anyone and that only the executive should make decisions?

Mr. Martin: The hon. Gentleman has clearly not taken the trouble to read the amendment. I am saying exactly the opposite.
I belong to the National Union of Public Employees, which employs nurses and hospital porters.

Mr. Holt: On a technical point, the hon. Gentleman's union does not employ the nurses.

Mr. Martin: I apologise. The employees in membership include nurses, porters, sometimes doctors, school caretakers and cleaners but very few research workers, lawyers and accountants. One of the largest unions in the country, with almost 1 million members, clearly needs legal, financial and research expertise at head office, and the only way to obtain it is to recruit from outside the union membership. Even if we balloted the membership to allow lawyers to participate in the

executive committee, we would probably not find any lawyers in membership. They have to be appointed from outside.
It is nonsense to suggest that researchers, accountants and legal advisers cannot participate in executive meetings, but that would be the effect of the amendment as it provides that people who are not elected cannot attend executive meetings even on a non-voting basis. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) shakes his head, but he is the only Conservative Member to do so. The others have clearly cottoned on to the difficulties posed by the amendment. It is nonsense to expect trade unions to be expert and professional in the way in which they conduct their business and seek to prevent the experts whom they appoint from participating in executive committee meetings on a non-voting basis.

Mr. Reg Prentice: From what I have heard so far, the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) has had the best of the argument, although there are clearly problems of definition, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springbum (Mr. Martin) has drawn attention to some of them.
The Bill as it has emerged from Committee is still too narrowly drafted. We seek a situation in which the officials who have real power in the trade unions should be elected and subject to re-election at intervals of five years or less. The Bill, as drafted, will not achieve that. Therefore, some of the most powerful figures in the trade union movement will either not be elected or will be elected for life.
I cite as an example the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, of which I have been a member since 1950. The general secretary of that union is potentially the most powerful trade union leader in the country. One has only to look back over the list of people who have occupied that position almost since the union was founded — Ernest Bevin, Arthur Deakin, Frank Cousins and Jack Jones—to appreciate the power that goes with the job. The general secretary of the TGWU is elected. An election is shortly to take place for Mr. Moss Evans' successor. The general secretary can then stay in office until retirement. A strong case can be made for the holder of that office — this is an especially powerful example, because of the power that goes with that post—to come up for re-election at intervals of not more than five years.
When the constitution of the TGWU was drawn up in the 1920s—it has not been altered greatly since then—it provided for a complex and elaborate pyramid of elected committees whose power, on paper, rested with their lay members. There is a trade group committee in each region. The pyramid then goes up to national trade group committees and regional committees, and at the top of the pyramid is the general executive council. Neither the general secretary nor any of the other officers of the union has a vote on those committees. Those officers give crucial advice and, generally speaking, leadership.
In 1955, a tremendous change occurred. At a May Day meeting Arthur Deakin—who was due to retire within a few months — died. His immediate successor, Jock Tiffin, was a sick man and could not effectively do the job. He died later that year. In a short time, Frank Cousins became deputy general secretary, acting general secretary, and then general secretary. The change from Deakin to Cousins meant a complete reversal of the union's policy


—from Right wing to Left wing in terms of TUC and Labour party policy; from supporting NATO and collective defence to supporting unilateral disarmament; and from involving itself in a great deal of co-operation in industry to being more militant. That occurred because of the change of general secretary. I suggest that the Bill, as drafted, does not deal with that situation.
What I have said about the leadership of the TGWU would apply to a number of other senior union officers and, therefore, to a large proportion—I do not know how many, because I have not done the research—of the general council of the Trades Union Congress. The people who become the leaders of their individual unions make up the membership of the general council. If the Bill is passed in its present form, quite a few of the members of the general council will either not need to be elected or will be elected on terms that enable them to go on until retirement without being regularly re-elected.
The Government should look at this matter again. If they cannot accept the amendment— I believe it is a good idea—they should introduce further amendments in the other place to deal with this gap in the Bill.

Mr. John Smith: No hon. Member would be surprised that the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) should try to be more royalist than the King on this matter.

Mr. Prentice: More democratic.

Mr. Smith: I shall deal later with the right hon. Gentleman's addiction to democracy. He was not keen on democracy when he crossed the Floor of the House and did not submit himself to election by the people who had elected him in the first place. He continued to represent those people after he changed from the political affiliation on which he was elected. I shall not take sedentary lectures from the right hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) said that his amendment would clarify some legal ambiguities about the exercise of a casting vote. I do not believe that there is an ambiguity. The answer given in Committee by the Government was correct. Therefore, there is no need for an amendment on that basis.
The main reason for the amendment, although it was not stated by the hon. Member for Truro, was advanced by the right hon. Member for Daventry. The right hon. Gentleman said that the proposition was that in all cases general secretaries should be elected, whether or not the unions wished it. One of the crucial points in the Bill—this is the Labour party's contention — is that trade unions should make up their own minds on this matter. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for elections goes wider than the trade union movement. He wants other people to be elected periodically every five years. From time to time, the right hon. Gentleman should examine his new party and suggest some reforms.
8.15 pm
Hon. Members, including the Under-Secretary of State, should consider the practical aspects. In many trade unions, the general secretary, or the chief official, is in a different position from the traditional general secretary in the older trade unions. It is the practice in many of the new white-collar unions to recruit the general secretary, like a career civil servant, from the market place in the same way as a company recruits a chief executive from the market place.

Mr. Mikardo: Or a permanent secretary of a Department.

Mr. Smith: As my hon. Friend reminds me, he is recruited in the same way as a permanent secretary of a Department.
The unions see the chief official as the chief executive, carrying out the union's decisions, whether made by the executive at annual conference or in other decision-making processes. His principal job is more that of a civil servant than anything else in implementing the union's policy. That is the case with the Engineers and Managers Association, the British Air Line Pilots Association and, I believe, the National and Local Government Officers Association.
There is a great deal of sense in that development. For one reason or another, the unions believe that they are likely to be better served by a chief executive recruited from the market place who is more sympathetic to the union's general objectives and policies than by someone produced from within the union by election. The unions go to their members for the governing body, but they prefer to go wider for their chief official. There is nothing reprehensible in that attitude. If unions were forced to desist from that policy by the Bill's provisions, that would not be in the public interest. NALGO, for example, should not be forced to change the way it runs the union because of the changes proposed in the Bill.
I will be told that there is a way around that difficulty —that the unions could continue to have an appointed chief official, provided he does not sit on the executive. Does it make sense for the chief official not to sit on the executive when it takes its decisions but instead to be told of the executive's decisions in some other manner? Should he not be on the executive, without a vote, as are the chief executives of other elected bodies, so that from time to time he can give his advice? The union should not need to exclude him from its considerations.
This is a practical proposition. We know that many trade unions — this was noted in the Green Paper published before the Bill was drafted — follow that practice. Will those hon. Members who proposed the amendment tell the House why BALPA, NALGO, the Engineers and Managers Association and many other professional groups which are classified as trade unions should be stopped from following that practice? I believe that the hon. Member for Truro would concede that, if the amendment is carried, we would need to stop that practice or stop the general secretary or chief official from attending executive meetings. As neither of those measures is desirable, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment to a vote.

Mr. Alan Clark: The aim of part I is to ensure that the union executives accurately reflect the views of ordinary members. Hence, the balloting requirement applies to those, and only those, who can vote on the executive and thereby commit their union to a course of action. Like so much of the Bill, as the House has already been told and will be told again later in our discussions, that is a simple and readily understandable principle which commands widespread support, not least among trade union members.
It is usual for unions to divide their executives between voting and non-voting members. The non-voting members tend generally to be union employees. That was the point


developed by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin). In other words, they are the union officials—the treasurer, who can be a qualified accountant, the general secretary and often his assistants, the union's trustees and possibly even the union's solicitor.
It should not be suggested seriously that professional employees of that kind, who have no votes on the executive, although they may be members of it, should all be subject automatically to election. That is what the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) is asking the House to accept. The points that he made about casting votes were correct. If one has a casting vote, one has it as of right, as provided in subsection (7), and that means that one would have to be elected.
The hon. Member gave the example of Mr. Arthur Scargill and his casting vote. I doubt whether he would give up his casting vote. The voting strength of his executive is crucial at present. All kinds of arguments are imminent, and the power struggle over the strike ballot might go in a different way to that which he intends if he gave up his casting vote.
The hon. Member for Truro was all too glib when he said that the subsection would be used as a loophole, that various distinguished and prominent union members would give up their voting right to avoid subjecting themselves to the scrutiny of regular election, and that they may stay on the executive with some nominal power, which would be less real than if they were voting members of the executive.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) referred to the officials who hold real power in the union. That echoed the adjectives used by the hon. Member for Truro when he described members of the union as leading and important. We have to decide how to measure that importance and that power. The only way in which it can be specifically and factually measured is to gauge their ability to commit the unions to certain courses of action and to determine what happens to their members by casting their vote following discussion.
Those other powers to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry alluded depend upon the personality and the technique for self-publicity, and may depend on skill on the television screen, but judgments as to whether the member is important are essentially subjective. Our business is to measure that precisely. The only way we can do that is to decide whether the member has a vote on the executive. The hon. Member for Truro gave the example of the National Union of Railwaymen, whose general secretary was dismissed by his executive.
The officials who are appointed or who do not have votes on the executive are, in the last resort, servants of the executive and can be dismissed by it. That is the difference in the power of those who have a vote on the executive and those who do not.
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) paid me a compliment which I much appreciate. When I was welcomed to the Chamber by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), I distinctly heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that I was the best of the Ministers. That is something that I cherish, but I fear that that spirit may evaporate when we come to part III next Monday.
The point raised by the right hon. and learned Member is important, because the amendment would inhibit the

ability of unions to recruit in the market place. That applies to the newer and white-collar unions particularly. They wish to recruit, on the basis of professional expertise, those who might be appropriate for official and administrative roles in the union. For all those reasons, I believe that the amendment is impractical and imprecise and I advise the House to reject it.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: The Minister has shown that there is a fundamental difference between his position and that of hon. Members on the Opposition Benches and between his position and that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice). We say that this provision should cover people who are members of the principal executive committee, as laid down in the Bill, or the union's chief executive officer.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) pointed out, that is one leg of our amendments. There is no criticism of Mr. Speaker, but our amendment which dealt with the position of general secretary has not been selected.
We want to try to ensure that the principal executive officer of the union is periodically elected by the membership as a member of the executive committee or is periodically re-elected by the elected executive. If he is the type of person who has been referred to, as in the case of BALPA—I rather favour that type of administration in unions — he should, as do many company chief executives, have a five-year contract. The principal executive committee of the union then has an opportunity to review that contract to decide whether it wants to keep him. in office.
That means that those people elected by the union membership under the provisions of the Bill have a say. That applies in the case of the general secretary, if he is appointed by the executive, once every five years or, if he is a member of the executive, he is re-elected, like other members of the committee, by the full membership of the trade union. That is the principle that we are trying to incorporate into the Bill. The amendment goes part of the way towards achieving that aim.
Other officials who attend meetings—the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin)—are a cause of anxiety, but I do not see why there should be any difficulty. I have attended union executive meetings at which the union's solicitor and the heads of various other departments have addressed the executive committee and given their advice, but that does not make them members of the executive committee. Similarly, in local government, various officials of various departments can speak at committee meetings, but that does not make them members of the council.
We say that members of the executive committee—usually principal executive officers of unions are ex officio members of committees—or those who have some other role which makes them members of the principal executive committee under the rules — and should be re-elected periodically.

Mr. Evans: Was the gentleman who performs the task of chief executive officer or general secretary of the Social Democratic party elected by the whole of the membership, and will he be subject to re-election?

Mr. Wrigglesworth: He was elected by the elected executive committee of the Social Democratic party. He had a short-term contract, which came up for review, in exactly the same way trade union chief executives—

Mr. Evans: But he was appointed, too.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I have made the position absolutely clear. He is elected in exactly the same way as trade union chief executives are, by the elected committee of the union. In our case, the gentleman was elected by universal franchise — one member, one vote — of the national executive committee of the party.
There is no inconsistency in our position. I think that the amendment would ahieve the aim referred to by the right hon. Member for Daventry. It gives the opportunity for those important people, the chief executive officers of the trade unions, to come up for periodic reappointment or re-election. If they are reappointed, it is by a body elected under the provisions of the Bill.
This is only a modest amendment. It will ensure that the people who have enormous influence and power in the trade union movement are periodically re-elected or, under the other amendment that I described, reappointed. Therefore, I hope that the Government will think again about the matter and that we shall have the support of the House in ensuring that this further extension of democracy in the trade union movement is put into the Bill.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 14, Noes, 241.

Division No. 202]
[8.31 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Ashdown, Paddy
Steel, Rt Hon David


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Wainwright, R.


Howells, Geraint
Wallace, James


Johnston, Russell
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Kennedy, Charles



Kirkwood, Archibald
Tellers for the Ayes:


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Mr. John Cartwright and


Penhaligon, David
Mr. A. J. Beith.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Brinton, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Ancram, Michael
Brooke, Hon Peter


Arnold, Tom
Browne, John


Ashby, David
Bruinvels, Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Buck, Sir Antony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Budgen, Nick


Baldry, Anthony
Burt, Alistair


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butterfill, John


Batiste, Spencer
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Bellingham, Henry
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Bendall, Vivian
Chapman, Sydney


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Chope, Christopher


Benyon, William
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Best, Keith
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clegg, Sir Walter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cockeram, Eric


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Colvin, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Conway, Derek


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Coombs, Simon


Bottomley, Peter
Cope, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Corrie, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Couchman, James


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Cranborne, Viscount


Bright, Graham
Currie, Mrs Edwina





Dickens, Geoffrey
Knowles, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Knox, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lamont, Norman


Dover, Den
Lang, Ian


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lawler, Geoffrey


Eggar, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Emery, Sir Peter
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lester, Jim


Fallon, Michael
Lightbown, David


Favell, Anthony
Lilley, Peter


Fletcher, Alexander
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lyell, Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McCrea, Rev William


Fox, Marcus
McCrindle, Robert


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Freeman, Roger
Macfariane, Neil


Fry, Peter
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Galley, Roy
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Maclean, David John.


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Glyn, Dr Alan
McQuarrie, Albert


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Major, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Malone, Gerald


Gorst, John
Maples, John


Gow, Ian
Marlow, Antony


Grant, Sir Anthony
Mather, Carol


Greenway, Harry
Maude, Hon Francis


Gregory, Conal
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Grist, Ian
Merchant, Piers


Ground, Patrick
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grylls, Michael
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Hanley, Jeremy
Miscampbell, Norman


Hannam, John
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Moate, Roger


Harvey, Robert
Montgomery, Fergus


Haselhurst, Alan
Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hawksley, Warren
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hayes, J.
Mudd, David


Hayhoe, Barney
Murphy, Christopher


Hayward, Robert
Neale, Gerrard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nelson, Anthony


Heddle, John
Newton, Tony


Henderson, Barry
Nicholls, Patrick


Hickmet, Richard
Norris, Steven


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley


Hind, Kenneth
Osborn, Sir John


Hirst, Michael
Ottaway, Richard


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Page, John (Harrow W)


Holt, Richard
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Hooson, Tom
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hordern, Peter
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Howard, Michael
Patten, John (Oxford)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Pink, R. Bonner


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pollock, Alexander


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, Barry


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, William (Corby)


Irving, Charles
Powley, John


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Price, Sir David


Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Raffan, Keith


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Renton, Tim


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rhodes James, Robert


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)






Roe, Mrs Marion
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shersby, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Skeet, T. H. H.
Walden, George


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Ward, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Warren, Kenneth


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Watts, John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wood, Timothy


Stokes, John
Yeo, Tim


Stradling Thomas, J.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Rt Hon John David



Taylor, John (Solihull)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Archie Hamilton.


Townend, John (Bridlington)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED IN RELATION TO ELECTIONS

Amendments made: No. 2, in page 3, line 13, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

'(a) a class determined by reference to any trade or occupation;
(b) a class determined by reference to any geographical area;' —[Mr. Alan Clark.]

No. 3, in page 3, line 17, at end insert—
'; or

(d) a class determined by reference to any combination of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) above.'. —[Mr. Alan Clark.]

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 3, line 28, after 'constraint', insert
'by a means other than a workplace or union branch ballot'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No.
26, in page 3, line 30, leave out from 'supplied' to 'a' in line 31 and insert `by post with'.

No. 27, in page 3, line 34, at end insert `by post'.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: This is an important issue which was covered in our debates in Committee, but it is appropriate for the House to have the opportunity to consider it again. The amendments deal with the method by which the ballots for the principal executive committee should take place. We propose that they take place by postal ballot. I shall illustrate the arguments for and against by the example of the National Union of Mineworkers, which was referred to in Committee.
8.45 pm
The arguments deployed by the Minister and others against postal balloting are that it does not lead to as high a poll as that obtained by other methods. We have heard the Minister condemn the low turnout at branch meetings in union after union. I therefore assume that he will want to rule out the possibility of a high turnout at branch balloting meetings. He chose the NUM as an example of a high turnout in a workplace ballot, which is the other method that is cited as a better means of balloting than postal balloting. I shall deal with that point and consider some of the representations that have been made to me by miners about their balloting system.
NUM balloting at the pithead is unlike balloting that would take place in virtually any other union. The pit is the focus of attention and a regular place of work for the mining community, whereas members of other unions

often do not work at the same place and therefore do not have the same cohesion or identification and involvement with their union as NUM members. Therefore, it is wrong to claim that workplace balloting, such as is the case with the NUM, is typical of what might happen in the Transport and General Workers Union, for example, the members of which are spread over a vast range of industries and workplaces in dribs and drabs throughout the country. The General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union also has a vast membership that is spread all over the country in many different workplaces. In those unions it is unlikely that there would be the type of turnout that the Minister cited as an example of good practice.
The argument against workplace and branch balloting is overwhelmingly that it is open to abuse and corrupt practice in relation to ballot papers and members of the union being open to undue influence, threats and bullying. I have a paper that has been prepared by an official of the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union. He is widely experienced in these matters. On workplace ballots, he points out that the system is wide open to abuse at various stages. I shall go through the list of points at which he believes the system is vulnerable:
1. In the number of ballot papers claimed for distribution at each location. 2. In the unsupervised distribution of ballot papers. 3. In the return of ballot papers. 4. In the improper use of discarded papers, which in many cases are over 50 per cent. of those issued. 5. In undue influence exerted on the voter. The variety of forms of pressure is legend. 6. In the count at local level. 7. In the national returns.
The Minister referred to the NUM as an example of good practice. He said:
The NUM's system of workplace ballots is, I think we would all agree, a democratic system, and is one that ensures a high turnout. On many recent occasions, the decision made in a workplace ballot has been different from the decision that the union's leadership sought. Bully-boy pressure has not been in evidence or at least not sufficiently in evidence to affect decisions.
If there is any such evidence, I find it disturbing. The Minister was being rather complacent. To hear the Minister and the chairman of the Conservative party, bearing in mind the background of the current dispute, talking about no bully-boy pressure is, to say the least, surprising. When I suggested to the Minister that it was curious that there were always press reports of the NUM ballots and asked whether that raised questions about the validity of the way in which they were being conducted, he said:
That has certainly struck me as peculiar. I have also noted that those reports have become less, rather than more, accurate over the years, as the arrangements for ballots have become more democratic." — [Official Report, Standing Committee F, 17 January 1984; c. 502–503.]
I think the House will agree that that is a good testimonial from the Minister for the NUM system of branch balloting.
I hope that hon. Members will bear with me if I refer to the beginning of this year, when the elections for the new general secretary of the NUM took place. As hon. Members will know, the results of that ballot were very close. Mr. Peter Heathfield, who has now been appointed as the general secretary of the NUM, obtained 74,186 votes and the defeated candidate, Mr. John Walsh, with a different viewpoint, obtained 70,571, so there was a majority of nearly 3,000—a narrow margin of votes in such an election.
The Minister said that press reports had become less and less accurate. Therefore, I took the trouble to study the reporting of the election. I shall come to the allegations


about it made by Mr. Walsh later. The ballot boxes closed on Friday 20 January. In a report in The Times that can only have been written within hours of the ballot closing, it was said:
early returns put Mr. Peter Heathfield, leader of the Derbyshire pitmen, out in front of his moderate rival, the Yorkshire area agent, Mr. John Walsh. The second moderate candidate, Mr. Les Kelly from North Wales, was trailing a poor third …
Mr. Heathfield's members have returned a vote of under 60 per cent. for their 'favourite son' and in Lancashire one pit recorded an 8 to 1 vote for the moderate candidate, with three others evenly divided or just in favour of the Left.
I think that the House will agree that that is interesting. One pit recorded an 8:1 vote for the moderate candidate, while three others were evenly divided or against the Left. One has to ask how anybody knew, before the votes had been counted—they were counted 48 hours later by the Electoral Reform Society—how the voting in particular pits had gone. I leave hon. Members to speculate on how The Times might have got hold of that information.
The report goes on:
In South Wales, they were 'weighing' the Heathfield votes, and in Kent there is at least a two-to-one majority for the Left.
In Durham a vote of about 70 per cent. was recorded for the Derbyshire leader, Eppleton colliery nearby turned in a similar vote. In Northumberland he was 'a nose in front'.
Other reports also appeared, and, by Monday 23 January, the final result was being widely reported in stories written on Sunday, although the result was not due to be announced until 24 January.
For instance, on Monday 23 January the Financial Times reported:
Britain's 190,000 miners have voted by a narrow margin to elect a Left-winger, Mr. Peter Heathfield, as general secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers … The result of the pithead ballot on Friday will not be formally announced until tomorrow but Mr. Heathfield, secretary of the Derbyshire NUM, has scraped home with a majority of little more than a few thousand votes.
I shall not delay the House any further because I have said enough to illustrate the sort of reports that were appearing. Clearly, somebody had access to the ballot papers before they were counted by the independent Electoral Reform Society. It is clear that they were counted before they ever got to the independent body. Not only did such people have access to the ballot papers, but they counted the individual results of individual areas. That opens up questions of how accurate and open to abuse this ballot is.
That is the first demonstration that all is not right in the NUM balloting procedure, and it calls into question Mr. Heathfield's victory as general secretary of the NUM. I have also received some letters from the minefields—from the miners. [Interruption.] I should perhaps have said from pitheads, but to some members of the NUM these letters may come from minefields. I shall quote some of these letters to the House because they add further to the anxiety that has been expressed about the way in which this workplace balloting can be interfered with and abused.
The first letter comes from a miner in Derbyshire, who says:
I didn't get a voting paper for the NUM general secretary ballot last week, mainly because my accredited representative forgot to bring me one, due to me working an afternoon shift.
That is 1 vote for John Walsh that hasn't been reflected. I personally spoke to something like 150 associates and workmates last week and there is seething dis-content among the membership at the under-handed method employed by Scargill and the NEC in enforcing this overtime ban, as it is serving no useful purpose whatsoever! I have given no mandate for an

overtime ban to be applied, neither would any of the workmates I have spoken to. Personally speaking I think that John Walsh should demand a re-vote on unnumbered ballot papers".
Mr. Walsh raised the question of unnumbered ballot papers with the NUM executive. The letter goes on:
posted to the Electoral Reform Society and then we may get a 100 per cent. accurate result. The result last week should be declared void, you have one member here that didn't get his chance to record a vote, and is not too happy about that. 3,900 voting papers dis-figured is too high a number for my liking.
Mr. Walsh has also raised that with the NUM. Hon. Members will have seen that there have been queries about that in the press, but there have been no satisfactory replies either from the Electoral Reform Society or the NUM.
The second letter is another demonstration of what goes on at workplace ballots. It comes from a miner, who says:
I know at our pit the secret ballot is taken and the voting papers placed in unlocked plywood boxes, from there, it is anyone's guess what happens to them before they go to a central location to be put into locked boxes before being sent to London counting centre.
I am sure that this is the way that Arthur Scargill was elected, the ordinary miner doesn't stand a chance, there should be no delay in getting secret postal ballots. Plesase let this be known.
The third letter, which comes from a miner's wife, is another demonstration of what happens when there are workplace ballots. I know that the Minister will say that the Bill lays down certain criteria, but he must tell us how the criteria will deal with this case. The lady says:
The point is that when the local branches of the NUM held their meeting to vote on whether or not the National Executive had the backing of the miners to call an overtime ban, the meeting was held on a Saturday morning at 10.00 am and the men were only informed at the end of the shift the previous day. Consequently, the only people to attend were the ones who do not work overtime, (mainly the militant Scargillites) and therefore permission was granted.
I come to the important matter to which I want to draw attention:
Now going onto the more recent issue of the ballot held last week,"—
that was for the general secretary—
at the pit where my husband works, the underground men leave the baths by a different exit to the surface workers (the majority of which work overtime). On the day of the ballot the only place where there were any ballot papers was the exit which is used by the underground men.
So those who were for Mr. Heathfield and for the overtime ban were able to vote, and an impediment was put in the way of the surface people, who did not support the overtime ban.
9 pm
That is a subtle way of influencing the outcome of a vote. Where one puts the ballot box in relation to the baths at the pithead has a profound influence on the people who vote. It is difficult to introduce legislation to stop that type of abuse and the conversations and threats that prevent people from voting freely. I know that the Minister has tried to lay down strict criteria in the Bill, and I applaud the criteria that he has laid down, but I do not accept that the Bill will stop abuse of that nature if he is prepared to allow workplace balloting to continue. There are too many opportunities—as union officials would quickly tell the Minister, if he were to ask them—for subtle influencing and abuse of voting to take place.

Mr. Evans: I am sure the House has listened with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's story about the abuses that took place in the recent NUM elections, but would it not help his case enormously if he were to name the collieries that were involved in those appalling abuses?

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I have the miners' letters here, and I should be happy to show them to the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans), but I do not want to go back through the whole of my speech and list all the collieries involved.
That leads me to conclude that the only way to overcome such abuses is to have postal ballots. I know that the Government have thought about the matter and I know that the Minister took this view before, but I ask him to think again. In my view, postal balloting is the only way to ensure that undue influence and abuse do not take place. The Minister and Opposition Members who oppose this type of ballot may make jokes about ballot papers being stuck behind clocks on mantelpieces or people not having peace and quiet in their homes to sit down and mark their ballot papers, but that is not a serious argument against postal balloting. As the Minister knows, it has worked most effectively in two major unions in this country. I take my hat off to the way in which the ETU—the EETPU, as it is now — and the AUEW have arranged their affairs. They have transformed their unions as a result of introducing postal balloting.
I cannot for the life of me see why the Government—I understand the Labour Opposition's view—cannot accept this proposal when it has operated so successfully in those two unions. Apart from what I said earlier about not every union getting the size of turnout that the NUM gets, the Minister—as well as the Labour party—should look carefully at the change in the turnout that took place in the AUEW elections when postal balloting was introduced. It is not as high as I would like, but it is considerably higher than it ever was before postal balloting was introduced. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the postal balloting systems in the EETPU and the AUEW led to their having a leadership that more truly reflects the opinions, interests and views of their members than any other system that I have seen operating anywhere.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will reconsider his insistence on allowing workplace ballots to take place. I hope that he is not ruling out postal ballots. Although the Bill does not lend itself to our tabling amendments to put into operation the full system, we would prefer postal ballots to be the norm, as I said in Committee, with exceptions being allowed if the certification officer—as in the case of the National Union of Seamen—said that postal ballots were not deemed necessary in certain circumstances.
We have also tabled an amendment, to which we shall come later, on the supervision of ballots. Therefore, I shall not raise that issue now, although it is obviously related to some of the points that I have been making. I hope that I have said enough, by taking the NUM ballot as an example, to convince the Minister that he should think again about the provisions in the Bill. I hope that the House will support the amendment.

Mr. Evans: I shall repeat the comment that I made to the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) earlier. It would have helped his case enormously if he had had the grace to reveal to the House the collieries where the appalling incidents that he described took place. It is not fair, right or proper to give such stories in any shape or form in the House and not back them up with some hard facts. Had he named the collieries, all who are concerned with abuses of that nature could make inquiries to check the validity or truthfulness

of the points made by correspondents who have been in touch with the hon. Gentleman. One suspects that if people write such letters to the hon. Gentleman the chances are that they will also have written to members of the Government or the Opposition. I am not aware of anyone else receiving letters of that nature. I stress that I am not suggesting that such events did not occur, I am merely saying that it would have been far better if the hon. Gentleman had named the collieries.
I was surprised to find from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he knew the Labour party's arguments even though he had not heard them. I found that rather interesting because I happen to be a member of the engineering section of the AUEW and took part in all the debates and arguments within that union when we were discussing the change from branch to postal ballots.
The hon. Gentleman referred to fiddles which took place, or could take place, at branch and workplace ballots. Fiddles are to be deplored no matter where they take place. I am sure that every hon. Member is aware that fiddles can occur wherever human nature can devise a means to gain something that they think can be of advantage to them. Fiddles can take place in postal ballots as well as in branch or workplace ballots. Fiddles can take place in local authority and general elections. Recently I read of a lady who appeared in court charged with the offence of fraudulently voting on behalf, I believe, of a Conservative party candidate. I am sure that all appreciate that, no matter what rigid criteria Parliament lays down about the offence of impersonation, it goes on throughout Britain at general and local elections. Indeed, the slogan in Northern Ireland is, "Vote unionist, vote early and vote often." I believe that I read somewhere that the Government are concerned about the propensity of people in Northern Ireland to vote more than once and that they are hoping to do something about it. Unfortunately, fiddles at elections take place no matter how much hon. Members and trade union leaders deplore it and no matter how much town clerks at elections deplore it. I merely want to record that fact so that the impression will not be gained that there is any particular method of voting which is fiddle-proof. No man or woman has so far devised any such method.
I am not merely criticising amendment No. 25 on drafting grounds when I say that, looking at it carefully, I do not think that it will bring about postal ballots. As I read it, a union could hire a local miners' institute or city hall and organise a ballot there. The amendment seeks to insert the words:
by a means other than a workplace or union branch ballot.
If we are to discuss the principle of postal ballots, it would be better to have a correctly worded amendment. I should not like trade unions to have ballots other than at a workplace or a branch, but if amendment No. 25 is included and the Bill is enacted that could happen.
Whether elections for principal executive councils are by post, at a branch or workplace, the assumption, which appears to be abroad in the House of Commons, that trade unions are concerned only with who elects the members of the executive council and how and where they are elected is much more important. There is far more to running a trade union than activities regarding the election of the executive council—no matter how important that body is.
Ten years ago in the engineering section of the AUEW the question whether there should be branch ballots or a switch to postal ballots was raised. That was a valid


argument, which I suggest has been borne out. The danger of removing ballots from the branch was that it would have a detrimental impact on the life of the branch. As in any other organisation, the activities of the branch are at the heart of the organisation.
At the same time in the AUEW there were discussions about the merits or otherwise of the check-off system—where a member no longer needs to go to his branch to pay his trade union subscriptions, which can instead be deducted by his employer at his place of work. In the Tyne district committee of the AUEW, to which I belonged, we had many long and sincere arguments about those twin developments—the introduction of postal ballots and of the check-off system. The chances were that they would be detrimental to the framework of the union.
Hon. Members should not lose sight of the fact that at branch level, unions try their utmost to encourage members to participate in the union's affairs. Members receive the reports of the executive council and area council representatives, reports from the local district or area committee, and reports from the conveners of various industrial establishments who report on the activities that appertain to that branch. That is where the membership participates in all union affairs. Arguments raged hot and strong within the AUEW to the effect that anything that took life away from the branch would be detrimental to the union.
The methods that were adopted in the AUEW then were perfectly fair and proper for conducting elections. I was a branch member who for many years had been the branch teller and had conducted the elections at the branch. Despite all the arguments, none took place that cast doubts on the integrity of the many thousands of AUEW men and women who conducted the ballots at the branch. The arguments were solely about turnout.
9.15 pm
One of the difficulties involved when the House discusses voting in trade unions such as the AUEW is that hon. Members assume that electing a member of the executive council of the union or the general secretary, the president or a national officer is like electing a Member of Parliament. It is assumed that there are clearly defined constituency areas and that the candidates are reasonably well known to those who are asked to vote for them. The truth is different. The United Kingdom is divided into seven AUEW divisional council areas and each area elects one member of the executive council. The whole of Scotland is one area and all the union's members in Scotland elect one member of the executive council.
Members receive through the post a ballot paper with 10 or 12 names and each candidate is allowed to include a précis of his activities in the union. The union member who knows even one of the candidates is lucky. Too often, members vote blind.
When votes were cast at branch meetings, members would ask tellers or branch officers who was the best candidate. The union rules precluded a teller from answering such a question directly, and the teller would make that clear, but often he would say, "I am voting for Joe Bloggs." One often found that Joe Bloggs got the most votes, and that was hardly surprising, because the teller was often the union convener at the plant. Nowadays, members often have little or no knowledge of the candidates.
We now find the media—wonderful newspapers like The Sun—rushing in to fill the vacuum. They suggest who members should vote for in union elections. Of course, it does not necessarily follow that the person whom The Sun regards as the best candidate is the best candidate in the members' view.
There is always considerable debate in the trade union movement about how ballots are conducted. After all the arguments in the AUEW, I supported a move to postal ballots. It was a long and agonised debate within the union, but the important aspect was that the union itself decided to switch to postal ballots. The membership of the union put a resolution to the national committee—not the executive council, which had no say in the matter—and that committee, the principal policy-making body, decided that the union should switch to postal ballots.
It is true that in the first flush of enthusiasm, following the introduction of postal ballots, the number of those voting went up substantially from 8 per cent. or 9 per cent. to 50, 60 or 65 per cent. of the membership. The percentage turnout in the AUEW—and it varies from election to election, according to whether it is the president or the general secretary, as opposed to an executive councillor or a district official — has slipped, unfortunately, and is of the order of 28 per cent. Nobody in the AUEW is proud of that or pleased with it. It is simply a fact.
Nor can we be proud of the percentage turnouts in other elections. General elections in Great Britain attract only about 66 per cent. of the electorate, which means that one in three electors does not bother to vote. However, nobody suggests that there should be postal ballots for general elections to increase the turnout.
In local authority elections, the figure is even worse, and goes down to approximately 25 per cent turnout. In some authorities, the best turnout will be about 55 to 60 per cent., balanced by others where the turnout is as low as 13, 14 or 15 per cent.
Ignoring the fact that one of the planks of Tory party policy is to do away with a great deal of local government in the country, if we as a Parliament deplore the low turnout in elections at bodies that are of vital importance to the people, I suggest that we should be giving our time to discussing compulsory postal ballots for the conduct of local elections long before we start to consider the conduct of local elections for trade unions.
We are not for postal ballots, nor are we opposed to them. We are not for branch ballots, nor are we against them. We are not for workplace ballots, nor are we against them. We maintain that the trade union has enough wit, nous and common sense to decide what is best and what is right for itself. Why should a trade union be denied the opportunity to arrive at its own conclusions? It is incredible that the House should spend valuable tine debating whether postal ballots will be imposed on every union in the country, with all the problems that society faces.
I stress again that there is no guarantee that postal ballots will not be fiddled. I do not wish to rake over the ground of the ETU and the problems that it faced many years ago but merely comment that that was a postal ballot and the fiddles that took place were well known. We are opposed to the amendment, because we believe that trade unions should decide how the membership casts its votes.


If we are to concern ourselves only with the percentage of people who vote in the election, all the evidence is that workshop ballots win every time.

Mr. Lightbown: We have been told of the commendable record of democratising the AUEW, but, in the 90 or so years that most unions have been in existence, can the hon. Gentleman say how many more have moved towards secret ballots or postal ballots?

Mr. Evans: I do not see the purpose of that intervention. Our argument is that unions should decide for themselves. If a union wants to have postal ballots, that is for it to decide. The majority of unions that conduct ballots have secret ballots.

Mr. Gummer: In this debate at least I was disposed to take common ground with the hon. Member for St Helens, North (Mr. Evans). He has fought all the proposals tooth and nail, line by line, yet between nil and four Labour party members have been here in the Chamber to hear him. That proves that to a large degree the opposition to the Bill is non-existent and spurious.
The hon. Gentleman said that the AUEW had had long discussions before deciding to introduce postal ballots. The amendments are not about whether there should be a minimum standard of democracy but whether that minimum standard of democracy should be confined to postal ballots.
I remind the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) that this issue has exercised the Government's mind considerably. I admitted to him in Committee that I began by believing that postal ballots were the best, and perhaps the only, way of electing the executive committee of a union. I must explain why I have moved from that position. First, it is important that we should define the minima of democracy not by the method of balloting but by the conditions under which the ballot should be held. A ballot should be secret, it should provide equal votes for those who have title to vote and it should be a convenient vote. Those are the basic minima.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South goes further than that and suggests—[Interruption.] It is interesting that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who has not been in the Chamber all evening, should feel obliged to comment from a sedentary position. Those with many hundreds of acres should look after them instead of taking part in this debate.

Mr. John Smith: The Minister is jealous.

Mr. Gummer: Of course I am jealous. I also think it odd that the hon. Member for East Lothian should be sitting on that side of the House. The hon. Member for East Lothian was not here to listen to the Opposition argument.
The hon. Member for St Helens, North said that we cannot achieve the three conditions without a postal ballot. I do not agree. To suggest that a workplace ballot cannot be legitimate, one must believe that there is dishonesty or dishonourable behaviour throughout the trade union movement. Most people do not believe that that is so. I do not believe that, in general, ballots will be rigged. I believe that, in general, ballots will be honourably and decently conducted. I also believe that if they are not so

conducted the Government will have to look at the matter carefully. It may be necessary to change the rules to ensure that people are protected.
It is not right for the House to assume that unions throughout the country are incapable of conducting a decent and honourable workplace ballot. In using examples of letters from the NUM, the hon. Member for Stockton, South did the trade union movement a disservice. I do not believe that that is a general pattern in trade unions. He should not use it as the basis upon which to decide whether we restrict votes to one type of balloting.
I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's unwillingness to say who these people were. They were complaining about a form of intimidation, and I do not think it right for hon. Members to insist that the names of miners and collieries should be produced in circumstances which would mean that they would not be prepared to write again. Even if Labour Members do not agree, I shall take the word of the hon. Member for Stockton, South. If he tells me that the letters were written by miners or their wives, I shall accept that. I do so because he is an honourable Member of this place and he would not say that if he did not believe it to be so. It is outrageous that anyone in this place should suggest that the letters are otherwise than what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Evans: I have not challenged the truthfulness of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth). I merely said that it would have strengthened his case immeasurably if he had named the collieries. If he had done that, we could have made our own inquiries into whether the alleged incidents took place. I did not suggest that he should have named the authors of the letters.

Mr. Gummer: With respect, many of us would accept that in some circumstances such inquiries would produce results in which letters would be difficult to write. The letters are part of the evidence that we must take into account, while realising the difficulties that some people face.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: I did not quote the letters at length, but one of them specifically referred to threats that had been made to a husband because of his views and the action that he was proposing to take.

Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right to have taken the action that he has. If the House were to take the view that the individual's position was widespread and general, it would have to cast aside the difficulties of the hon. Gentleman's proposal. However, if those circumstances are unusual rather than run of the mill, we must consider seriously the disadvantages of the hon. Gentleman's case. His proposals do not amount to the presentation of a case for or against postal ballots as opposed to branch ballots.
Following the request of those who were members of the Committee which considered the Bill, my considerations have led me to the conclusion that there can hardly be an instance in which a branch ballot could be carried out in circumstances that would meet the requirements of the Bill. It is not one's custom to say "never", except in extreme circumstances, but I do not think that there is any


likelihood that a branch ballot would fulfil the specific requirements laid down in the Bill. That means that we are talking about workplace ballots or postal ballots.
A later amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton, South suggests that he has in mind a postal ballot under close external scrutiny. The only ballot that cannot be fiddled is one which takes place under the control and supervision of an exterior body. That body must have control of the list of members who are to be balloted. It will have to send the ballot papers to those members and it will have to carry out spot checks upon the members to ensure that the lists are as they are supposed to be. It must control the keeping of the lists to ensure that they are up to date, ensure that the papers are returned and, finally, count them.
There will have to be an organisation—I am not using the term "quango", because I am trying to gain the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are especially unhappy about quangos—that will carry out all those functions. If that were the only way to ensure democratic elections within trade unions, the hon. Member for Stockton, South would have a point which we would have to take seriously.
If that were brought about, it would mean exactly what Opposition Members say: the whole conduct of elections in trade unions would be outwith those unions. That would be a most serious step to take. It could be taken, if that were the only way to ensure that democracy was served, but there would have to be much more proof than three letters, however carefully written and important they were.
The evidence of widespread continual fraud is not great. The evidence is that people are not given an opportunity to vote. That is what the argument is about —that they do not have a chance to vote—and that is the real feature of the ASTMS argument. It is not an argument about people being fraudulent or dishonourable but about the system not being right if 98 per cent. of the people do not vote.
Therefore, to apply to the system the complicated arrangement which the hon. Member for Stockton, South must mean seems not to be possible unless the evidence is there. The evidence is not there, and for that reason I urge the House to reject the amendment.
There are two other aspects to which I should refer, because the hon. Member for Stockton, South made much of them. The first was that, because the press claimed to know the results in various places, that must mean that it knew. That is not my experience of the press. Part of the duty and stock in trade of the press is to appear to know a good deal more than it actually knows. There is nothing wrong in that, but it would be a mistake to suggest that every sentence was the result of some illegal or improper arrangements with the ballot.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Stockton, South must get his facts right about the AUEW and its change. It did not change from a work-based ballot under the sort of arrangement that we have here. It changed from a branch-based ballot. Therefore, merely to say that the turnout now is better under a postal ballot than it was under a branch ballot is a statement of the obvious. It always is, because branch ballot turnouts are so bad. However, workplace ballot turnouts are not always bad, and they can be very high indeed.
The hon. Member for Stockton, South, in support of his case, must prove a degree of fraud—which he has not

proven—or he must show why it is preferable to have a complicated system of postal ballots and a lower turnout, when a high turnout must be an important part in the measurement of democracy in a union.
If his fears turn out to be true—if he is right and we are wrong—we shall be the first to see what must be done about that, because we are not in any way tied to a dogmatic view on the subject. We are simply determined not to be forced to make the single test when proof of widespread misuse of balloting is not found, and the hon. Gentleman has not been able to answer this major problem of turnout, which I should have thought was important for any democrat.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Having listened carefully to the Minister's reply, I remain unconvinced by his argument. He said that there was no evidence. I gave him some evidence—I thought it was quite formidable—of the very union that he lauded before the Committee as the pinnacle among examples of the sort of workplace balloting that he foresaw taking place under this legislation. If the example that he chose is as defective as I pointed out, I should have thought that he would have second thoughts about what is being proposed to the House. It was indeed a bold statement that there was no, or very little, evidence.
The Bill will introduce a vast extension of balloting, in a way that has not taken place in the trade union movement before. As the Minister said, there has not been much balloting in any trade unions, which is why legislation—in my view, rightly—has been introduced. There will be extensive balloting in all unions as a result of the Bill. Therefore, the House needs to be more convinced than the Minister has been able to achieve that that balloting will take place independently and freely and without the kind of activity and abuse that I described earlier.
The Minister argued that our proposal was terribly complicated, but I rebut that. There is nothing complicated about it. Two of the biggest unions in this country already use this procedure effectively and efficiently, and it is not an enormous burden on their resources. If the Government regarded it as such a crazy, complicated idea, why did they introduce it in their own recent legislation to provide for the funding of such ballots? It is quite simple. The Government rightly put legislation on the statute book to allow funding of postal ballots when they were more enthusiastic about the idea than they now are.
The Minister's argument showed the weakness of the Government's proposals. I hope that many of his hon. Friends, having listened to the debate, will decide that they should support postal balloting as the only means of ensuring a free and fair system of voting in trade union elections.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 26, in page 3, line 30, leave out from 'supplied' to 'a' in line 31 and insert 'by pest with'.—[Mr. Wrigglesworth.]

Question put,That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 12, Noes 242.

Division No. 203]
[9.42 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Johnston, Russell


Ashdown, Paddy
Kennedy, Charles


Carlile, Alexander(Montg'y)
Kirkwood, Archibald


Howells, Geraint
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David






Penhaligon, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steel, Rt Hon David
Mr. John Cartwright and Mr. A. J. Beith.


Wallace, James



Wrigglesworth, Ian





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Alexander, Richard
Freeman, Roger


Ancram, Michael
Fry, Peter


Arnold, Tom
Galley, Roy


Ashby, David
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Baldry, Anthony
Goodlad, Alastair


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gorst, John


Batiste, Spencer
Gow, Ian


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bellingham, Henry
Greenway, Harry


Bendall, Vivian
Gregory, Conal


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Benyon, William
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Grist, Ian


Best, Keith
Ground, Patrick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Grylls, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gummer, John Selwyn


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hanley, Jeremy


Bottomley, Peter
Hannam, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Harvey, Robert


Braine, Sir Bernard
Haselhurst, Alan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bright, Graham
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Brinton, Tim
Hawksley, Warren


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hayes, J.


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hayhoe, Barney


Browne, John
Hayward, Robert


Bruinvels, Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Heddle, John


Budgen, Nick
Henderson, Barry


Butterfill, John
Hickmet, Richard


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hind, Kenneth


Carttiss, Michael
Hirst, Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Chapman, Sydney
Holt, Richard


Chope, Christopher
Hooson, Tom


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hordern, Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Coombs, Simon
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, John
Hunter, Andrew


Corrie, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Couchman, James
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cranborne, Viscount
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Dover, Den
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Durant, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knowles, Michael


Evennett, David
Knox, David


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Lamont, Norman


Fallon, Michael
Lang, Ian


Favell, Anthony
Latham, Michael


Fletcher, Alexander
Lawler, Geoffrey


Fookes, Miss Janet
Lawrence, Ivan


Forman, Nigel
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lester, Jim


Fox, Marcus
Lightbown, David





Lilley, Peter
Pattie, Geoffrey


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Pawsey, James


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lord, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Lyell, Nicholas
Pollock, Alexander


McCrea, Rev William
Porter, Barry


McCrindle, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Powley, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Price, Sir David


Maclean, David John.
Proctor, K. Harvey


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Raffan, Keith


McQuarrie, Albert
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Major, John
Renton, Tim


Malone, Gerald
Rhodes James, Robert


Maples, John
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Marlow, Antony
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Mather, Carol
Rifkind, Malcolm


Maude, Hon Francis
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Shersby, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Skeet, T. H. H.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Moate, Roger
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Montgomery, Fergus
Stokes, John


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thurnham, Peter


Moynihan, Hon C.
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mudd, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Murphy, Christopher
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neale, Gerrard
Viggers, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Walden, George


Newton, Tony
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Ward, John


Norris, Steven
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Onslow, Cranley
Warren, Kenneth


Oppenheim, Philip
Watts, John


Osborn, Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Ottaway, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Page, John (Harrow W)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)



Paisley, Rev Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Mr. Donald Thompson and Mr. Michael Neubert.


Patten, John (Oxford)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 3

REMEDY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PART I

Mr. Alan Clark: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 35, at end insert—
'(1A) An application relating to an election which has been held must be made before the expiry of the period of one year beginning with the date on which the result of the election is announced by the trade union.'
This is purely a technical amendment. The Bill as currently drafted provides that an application to the courts for a declaration that an election failed to comply with the requirements of part I can be made at any time. The amendment requires that any such application must be made within a year of the result of the election being announced by the union. This is obviously a sensible alteration.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Alan Clark: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 24, leave out
'is a member of the union at the appropriate time'


and insert
'satisfies the requirements of subsection (10) below'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 6, 14 and 15.

Mr. Clark: These amendments are equally non-controversial and complement each other. Clause 3(9) and (10) as currently drafted provide that, where a court makes an order in relation to the holding of an election which is not complied with, any person can institute contempt proceedings so long as he is a member of the union at the time when such proceedings are begun.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 provide, in contrast, that those instituting contempt proceedings must also have been members of the union at the time that the order was made. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 make similar provisions in respect of the institution of contempt proceedings where a trade union has failed to comply with a court order made under clause 13(2) requiring it to take such steps as may be specified to secure that the collection of the political levy ceases following an unsuccessful review ballot.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 6, in page 5, line 27, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
'(10) The requirements are that—

(a) he is a member of the union at the time when the proceedings to enforce obedience to the order are begun; and
(b) he was such a member at the time when the order was made.'.—[Mr. Alan Clark.]

Clause 4

EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN TRADE UNIONS

Mr. Gummer: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 37, at end insert—
'(1A) Subsection (1)(b) above shall not apply where—

(a) a trade union has members ("special members") who are individuals but who are not such representatives as are mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above; and
(b) the conditions mentioned in subsection (1B) below are satisfied.
(1B) The conditions are that—

(a) all of the special members are merchant seamen;
(b) a majority of the special members are ordinarily resident outside the United Kingdom.'.
This change in the Bill is designed to meet the particular needs of the International Transport Workers Federation, one small part of which has individual members. Almost all those members do not reside in this country. They are members because there is no other way in which they can have proper trade union representation. I met representatives of the federation and felt that it was important that we should meet their particular and peculiar circumstances, which we are doing in this way.

Mr. John Smith: On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to express our appreciation to the Minister for agreeing to make this change. That was a reasonable case. When the Government accede to a reasonable case, although it does not happen frequently, we are obliged to thank them.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

INTERPRETATION OF PART I AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISION

Mr. Alan Clark: I beg to move amendment No. 9 in page 8, line 20, leave out from 'effect' to '; and' in line 22 and insert
'as if it did not require section 2 of this Act to be satisfied in relation to that election'.
This amendment is, if anything, more technical than its predecessors. During debate in Committee, Opposition Members said that the language of clause 6(3)(a) was not readily comprehensible. Ministers undertook to see whether it could be simplified. The amendment makes clearer what the effect of clause 6(3)(a) will be without altering its substance.

Amendment agreed to.

New Clause 3

LIMITATION OF MEANING OF 'ACTIONABLE IN TORT' IN SECTION 7

'In section 7 of this Act the words "actionable in tort" shall relate only to actions begun by an employer of persons breaking their contracts of employment or who have been subjected to interference with their performance, and actions begun by other persons shall be prevented by section 13 of the 1974 Act.'—[Mr. John Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. John Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We now move to part II of the Bill, which contains the proposition that, before an official strike, there must be a ballot of the members participating in the strike or industrial action under pain of the union losing its immunity from civil process in actions for damages caused by the strike.
The new clause is not the best that has ever been tabled. I tabled it as a damage limitation exercise. It seeks to limit the scope of this part of the Bill so that actions can be taken against trade unions only by employers, not by third parties. We do not desist from our opposition to this part of the Bill and to the proposition that employers should be able to take such actions. However, this gives us an opportunity to discuss this part of the Bill in a way that illustrates the inappropriateness of the so-called sanction that the Government are using.
The underlying supposition in part II, concerned with pre-strike ballots, is that somehow trade union leaders always want to take unwilling and reluctant members into disputes at the drop of a hat. Those who know about industrial relations know that that is not so. There have been many discussions. The underlying assumption upon which that supposition is based is unsound.
Many people will find it odd that when trade unions act officially, if they do not have a ballot, they lose their immunity from civil processes, but if they act unofficially they do not lose any of their legal immunities. It is odd that the Conservatives' contribution to industrial relations should be not only to give a stimulus to unofficial strikes but to create a distinction between official and unofficial strikes to the extent that unofficial strikes receive greater legal support than official strikes.
On what crazy notion of industrial relations systems that nostrum was formulated, I do not know. However, I


know that many countries have considered whether there should be pre-strike ballots. I believe that a minority have concluded that there should and others have concluded that there should not. It would be hard to find people in Britain who have a knowledge of industrial relations who have settled views either way. Many personnel managers—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Trade Union Bill and the consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Town and Country Planning Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Orders of the Day — TRADE UNION BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), agan considered.

Mr. Smith: Many personnel managers and others take the view that such a provision introduces into industrial relations inflexibility that we do not want. As we have explained in detail in Committee, the most objectionable thing about part II is that it is utterly inappropriate to remove the trade unions' so-called immunity from legal action. If the Government were genuinely trying to give more rights to people in trade unions as to whether there should be strike action, they would not have used this sanction; they would have introduced a trigger mechanism that requires a vote of some type. They have removed completely the unions' immunity from civil process. That alters the relationship between union and employer, not the relationship between the member of the trade union and the organisation of the trade union. The Government are using part II as a transparent cloak for weakening trade unions in relation to employers. Moreover, third parties are to be allowed to take action against trade unions. That reveals the Government's true motive. Allowing a third party to take action against trade unions for what arises from a strike demonstrates something about the relationship between the union and its members.
What are often called immunities are nothing less than necessary legal protection to permit trade unions to exist. Without the legal immunities that arise from the Trade Disputes Act 1906, it would not be possible for trade unions to take industrial action in any circumstances. It is because we have chosen not to legislate to give a right to strike but to deal with the matter as I have outlined that it is described as an immunity. It is not a privilege but a necessary protection for the functioning of trade unions in any civilised democratic society. Anyone who knows anything about industrial relations fully understands that.
We believe that the innovation that the Government are introducing will not help industrial relations one bit. When, as is frequently the case, trade union officials are called in to help over industrial relations problems, they will look over their shoulders to ensure that nothing they do can be construed as authorising or endorsing action that is taken in case they lose immunity if a ballot is not subsequently held. The Bill will impose an inflexibility on them that is thoroughly undesirable from an industrial relations point of view.
It is not sufficiently well or widely appreciated how much trade union officials do to sort out disputes that do

not lead to strikes. It is as well to remember that the vast majority of strikes are unofficial and last two days or less. That is the typical industrial relations problem in Britain. All the facts show that the Government, by trying to introduce this new provision in our industrial relations law, are not getting to the heart of what they think is the problem. We do not believe that it is a problem. More than that, part II upsets the industrial relations balance and gives the employer and other parties more legal ammunition to fire at trade unions. It will harm industrial relations and introduce inflexibility into the process. Ultimately, the crucial issue is whether industrial relations have improved. If they have not, there is no justification for the change.

Mr. James Wallace: I have followed with interest what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been saying. Perhaps he will give us an example of a third party having a locus to bring in an action that he envisages under this legislation.

Mr. Smith: There must be many who would suffer from secondary effects as a result of a strike, such as a supplier of goods who is affected at one remove from direct action, or someone other than an employer, such as a customer to whom the goods would have been delivered but for the strike. That is what arises in all cases where there is potential third party right of access.
In this new clause, we are trying to limit such a provision, but we are opposed root and branch to it, and there is no justification for introducing this new change into our industrial relations law. British industry has been singularly silent on this matter. There have been few writing to us pressing on us the merits of this part of the Bill. Most sophisticated and intelligent industrial relations managers will cultivate a good industrial relations system rather than look for legal advantages such as those that the Bill seeks to confer upon them.
This is probably the most idiotic part of the Bill and it is not even explicable in terms of the political philosophy of the Conservative party. I understand what the Government are at in part I and even more clearly what they are at in part III — that is a highly political operation. However, part II does not serve the political objectives of the Conservative party except that it generally weakens the trade unions at the cost of affecting our industrial relations system. I reject this part of the Bill as having provisions that contain not only malice but stupidity, and when we have a malicious and stupid proposition presented to the House of Commons we should vote against it, as we will when we vote for new clause 3.

Mr. Mikardo: At this hour, I do not want to delay the House any more than a minute or two. I have two points in support of the new clause. Before I deal with them, perhaps I may be forgiven if I say a word to the Minister about his general conduct on Report. We began our proceedings with references from hon. Members on both sides of the House to the long battle that we had in Committee. It was a hard-fought Committee, perhaps the most penetrating that I have had the experience of sitting on. It was conducted with the sort of courtesy that is in the best traditions of the House. We had a fair old battle across the Committee, but we had it with courtesy and with a deferential listening to the opposite point of view and without any introduction of personalities.
I very much reject the low-level, vulgar personal attacks that the Minister—who should know better and who should better appreciate his position on the Front Bench — made on my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I do not like personal criticisms, even of one's opponents. I regret the observations about the Minister by Mr. Alan Watkins in The Observer in an article on 11 March, concerning the views of Conservative Back Benchers on some of their Ministers. He said that some Ministers were much admired by Conservative Members and added:
There is not much appreciation for Mr. John Selwyn Gummer, who has a silly face, a silly voice and is silly all round.
That is pretty low level. I do not like it very much, and I regret that the Minister chose to give credibility to Mr. Watkins that he otherwise would not have had by indulging in the sort of petty rubbish we heard from him.
My first point relates to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said about inflexibility. I know from experience that the majority of disputes do not start with deep-laid plans or long series of meetings, and so on. They start with a spontaneous walkout, sometimes by a relatively small number of people. A shop steward is suspended, so all the blokes in the shop walk out. Even simpler, in a shop employing a lot of women, the women come in one morning to find that the heating has gone wrong, the place is freezing and they cannot work, so they walk out. Or there may have been a dispute about bonus payments, and people walk out. Nine times out of 10, the employer or —in big companies—the personnel manager rings up the divisional officer of the union and says, "Joe, that lot of yours has walked out on me again. Come round and sort it out, there's a good fellow." He comes round and, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, most disputes are settled within days. In fact, many are settled within hours. Joe comes round and says, "You have been a bit rough on my shop steward, haven't you? What say you to holding off the suspension for a week while we have a discussion?" He replies, "All right", and within hours the chaps are back in the machine shop, the assembly shop or the work-place.
That is what the provision in part II means. Now, when the employer rings up the divisional officer and says, "Joe, these chaps of yours have walked out on me, will you come and do something about it?" He will say, "Not on your nelly, mate. I shall not come round, because if I come round that makes it official, and if it makes it official you can sue my union, even one of your suppliers can sue my union, even one of your customers can sue my union, uncle Tom Cobleigh can sue my union, and even Mr. John Selwyn Gummer can sue my union. Not bloody likely am I coming round to talk to you about this strike. It is unofficial, and as far as I am concerned it will stay unofficial, because as long as it is unofficial your Act does not apply to it." Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard anything as daft as that?
The Government say they want to improve industrial relations, yet they bring in this Bill. It should be called "a Bill for the Encouragement of Unofficial Industrial Action". They are doing everything possible to encourage unofficial industrial action. It simply does not make sense.
I come to my second point. The workers put in a wage claim. The employers put in a counter-offer. However, the employees have asked for 7 per cent., and the employer

has offered 4 per cent. The employees say, "We will have none of that. We want a strike." Under the Bill, they cannot decide whether to accept the 4 per cent. or to go for something more without having a ballot. That is clear. So let us suppose that the workers go on strike. A week later, the employer says, "All right, I will give you 5½ per cent." At that stage, to be logical, there should be a ballot again. Otherwise, one is saying that the employees have to make a choice between acceptance or rejection without a ballot. In logic, if they cannot choose between acceptance and rejection in the first case without a ballot, why can one demand that they make a choice between acceptance and rejection in the second case without a ballot?
With all respect to the Minister I am a little older, I have spent a little longer in the trade union movement and I know more workers than he, although that is not difficult. As a result of part II there will be more disputes and they will last on average much longer. As a matter of fact, disputes in Britain last on average for a much shorter period than, for example, in the United States or Australia or even in the Federal Republic of Germany, a country which is often held up as a model of industrial relations. It does not have a great many disputes, but when it does they last for a long time.
Part II will mean more disputes, and more serious disputes which will take longer to settle. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East said, with characteristic modesty and justice, that new clause 3 may not be the best that could be tabled, but it has been tabled only to limit the damage that part II can do and to draw attention to that. That is why, it should have the support of the House. That is why if the Government really cared about industrial relations and were really anxious to make sure that we lose as little working time as possible in disputes, they would not only accept it but would table an amendment of their own in another place to delete part II altogether.

Mr. Martin: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) that the Bill will take us back to the old days when men and management would not admit that the closed shop existed. Everyone would be in the same union and the manager would give an undertaking not to employ anyone unless he was in that union, but if an outsider came along he would be told that there was no closed shop. As my hon. Friend said, when a strike takes place a full-time officer will come along and it will be a case of a nod being as good as a wink. He will tell the men to get back to work, but under his breath he will say, "Stay out lads. You will get your just rewards, but I have to say publicly that you must go back to work." That is not a good or open way to conduct industrial relations.
New clause 3 is excellent, because of the dangers in the Bill. On Clydeside we have had good news about Scott Lithgow. Anyone who knows anything about that shipyard, or any other shipyard for that matter, knows that for every man who is employed by the company there is the equivalent of seven men employed by outside contractors supplying such things as plumbing materials, ventilation and carpentry equipment. A ship at sea is equivalent to a small town and a lot goes into it. It is completely independent and its construction requires all sorts of skills. An industrial dispute could well arise in a


shipyard. Although both men and management may be trying to resolve the matter by negotiation, a small contractor could interfere with that process as a result of this legislation. The matter could become ridiculous. In Committee we cited organisations which have a known record of looking for cases to take to industrial tribunals. When trade union agreements were brought in, the Freedom Association sought to find people who would attend unfair dismissal tribunals and fight cases. The association paid legal expenses.
The danger is not that such organisations will persuade a large company to take a trade union to task— such firms usually have to negotiate, to have good relations with trade unions and to have the men back at work—but that a small supplier—even a baker who supplies goods to a factory or shipyard canteen—could, as a result of the legislation, bring an action against a trade union and cause a great deal of bitterness and resentment in industrial relations. The Government should therefore consider the new clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar pointed out that most disputes are heat-of-the-moment disputes. Workers may strike because someone who swore at the foreman was given the sack without the proper procedures having been followed. Few disputes have been about wage negotiations or complaints about conditions; most are heat-of-the-moment disputes, which are usually over almost as quickly as they start. The legislation will prolong disputes, and the Government should consider that.

Mr. Gummer: I acknowledge the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) in supporting the new clause. From our previous discussions, I know that he believes that to insist on a ballot before calling workers out on strke would be a cumbersome and difficult operation and that its effect would be to increase unofficial action. However, I remain convinced that he is wrong.
It is not unreasonable for people to be asked whether they wish to strike before they are called out on strike. Nothing that has happened recently makes that any different. Most of the population think it reasonable that, if a strike is proposed, it should first be ascertained whether workers wish to strike—

Mr. Mikardo: Or to go back.

Mr. Gummer: As the hon. Gentleman says, "Or to go back." As I said in Committee, there is a fundamental difference between going on strike and going back to work. The natural order of things is not to be on strike. The idea that there must be a ballot to go back after a strike does not hang with a pre-strike ballot. One should make sure that those who are asked to strike want to do so.
It is not reasonable to say that the immunities of a trade union can be dismissed in the terms used by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). It is essential that those immunities exist, if trade unionism is to exist. No Conservative Members have said otherwise. I have made it clear that I believe in those immunities, because they are right and essential and because it is impossible to imagine an effective trade union movement without them. However, if trade unions are to have those

immunities, it is reasonable for the community to insist that they are brought into play when union members want them and not in any other circumstances.
Therefore, if the effect of a strike is to be covered by immunities, it is not unreasonable that the strike should be shown to have the support of those people who will be called out on strike. It is not unreasonable to say that the granting of immunities demands that those who are to be called out on strike have the opportunity of deciding whether they wish to strike. It is not wrong to suggest that there is a connection between immunities and the need to ensure that members who are to be asked to take industrial action have the opportunity to decide on the matter.
The Bill does not preclude a trade union from taking no notice of the response of its members. Nothing in the Bill provides that there must be a majority for a strike. The Bill is careful to say only that those who are to be called to take industrial action should be given the opportunity to decide what they want to do. That is the least interference in the practice of trade unions that can be arranged.
The Opposition also argue that the Bill's provisions are so damaging that they should not be able to be triggered except by an employer. They suggest that a supplier who has been damaged by a strike called without a ballot should not have the right of redress. That is a curious argument, because most of us know that many strikes do considerable damage to third parties.
The hon. Member for Springburn mentioned bakers, but not only small firms are involved. The damage that could be done to an independent wholesaler or retailer is considerable and ought not to be cast aside lightly. Many people are damaged by strikes, and all that is asked is that there should be a ballot. If there is no ballot, the immunities will not exist. That does not seem unreasonable. Nor does it seem unreasonable that the union should lose the immunity from action not only by employers but by others who would be affected.
I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said about personal attacks. He and I have good reason to agree that we would not make comments about people's personal appearance. Neither of us would like to face the return match if we did that. However, I made no such personal comments about the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). I referred to what he said, the manner in which he said it and the intellect behind it. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar made heavy weather of that.

Mr. Mikardo: The silliest thing that the Minister of State did was to refer to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) had lost the seat in a previous election. So have I, and so has the Minister. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman calls that a personal remark, I admit it. It applies to me as it does to the hon. Gentleman. To make a fuss about that seems unnecessary.
The anxieties of the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar are unfounded. I do not believe that any trade union official who wishes to get men back to work will find it difficult to do his job without condoning action that has taken place without a ballot. I am sure that he will find it possible.

Mr. John Evans: We shall see.

Mr. Gummer: Indeed we shall. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will prove me wrong, but I think that he will be found to be wrong.
The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar said that immunity would remain for individuals involved in an unofficial strike. That is true, but I do not believe that there will necessarily be an increase in the number of unofficial strikes.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman must wait and see.

Mr. Gummer: We shall all have to wait and see. It is of the nature of unofficial strikes that a number of people get so fed up with the circumstance that they often ballot with their feet by walking out. That is what happens. I do not suggest that there should be some kind of unofficial ballot in those circumstances. We are referring to the formal circumstance in which a trade union calls for a ballot before a strike, or seeks to make official an unofficial action that has taken place. In those circumstances, the trade union ought to ask its members whether they wish to take industrial action. I do not believe that that is unreasonable.
I think that the House should not accept the new clause. I am sure that, in the event, we shall all learn that the principles and the proposals that the Government put forward are sensible, because they ask only that the union shall go back to its members when it wishes to call its members out on industrial action.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:

The House divided: Ayes 191, Noes 247.

Division No. 204]
[10.30 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)


Alton, David
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Donald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cowans, Harry


Ashdown, Paddy
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Craigen, J. M.


Ashton, Joe
Crowther, Stan


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunningham, Dr John


Barnett, Guy
Dalyell, Tam


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)


Beith, A. J.
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)


Bell, Stuart
Deakins, Eric


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Dewar, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Dixon, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Dobson, Frank


Blair, Anthony
Dubs, Alfred


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Boyes, Roland
Eadie, Alex


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Ellis, Raymond


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Ewing, Harry


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Fatchett, Derek


Buchan, Norman
Faulds, Andrew


Caborn, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Flannery, Martin


Canavan, Dennis
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Foster, Derek


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Foulkes, George


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Clarke, Thomas
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Clay, Robert
Garrett, W. E.


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
George, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Godman, Dr Norman


Coleman, Donald
Gould, Bryan


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Gourlay, Harry


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)





Hardy, Peter
Pavitt, Laurie


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Pendry, Tom


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Penhaligon, David


Haynes, Frank
Pike, Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Prescott, John


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Radice, Giles


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Randall, Stuart


Howells, Geraint
Redmond, M.


Hoyle, Douglas
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Janner, Hon Greville
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


John, Brynmor
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Johnston, Russell
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Sedgemore, Brian


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheerman, Barry


Kennedy, Charles
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kirkwood, Archibald
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Skinner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Snape, Peter


McCartney, Hugh
Soley, Clive


McCrea, Rev William
Spearing, Nigel


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Steel, Rt Hon David


McGuire, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McKelvey, William
Stott, Roger


Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Strang, Gavin


McNamara, Kevin
Straw, Jack


McTaggart, Robert
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McWilliam, John
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Madden, Max
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Marek, Dr John
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tinn, James


Martin, Michael
Torney, Tom


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wallace, James


Maxton, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Weetch, Ken


Meacher, Michael
Welsh, Michael


Michie, William
White, James


Mikardo, Ian
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wilson, Gordon


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Winnick, David


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Woodall, Alec


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Nellist, David
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Brien, William



Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. John Home Robertson and Mr. Allen McKay.


Park, George



Patchett, Terry



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Alexander, Richard
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Ancram, Michael
Bottomley, Peter


Arnold, Tom
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Ashby, David
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Braine, Sir Bernard


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Bright, Graham


Baldry, Anthony
Brinton, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Batiste, Spencer
Brooke, Hon Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Browne, John


Bellingham, Henry
Bruinvels, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Buck, Sir Antony


Benyon, William
Budgen, Nick


Berry, Sir Anthony
Butterfill, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, John (N Luton)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Carttiss, Michael






Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Chapman, Sydney
Harvey, Robert


Chope, Christopher
Haselhurst, Alan


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hawksley, Warren


Cockeram, Eric
Hayes, J.


Colvin, Michael
Hayhoe, Barney


Conway, Derek
Hayward, Robert


Coombs, Simon
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cope, John
Heddle, John


Corrie, John
Henderson, Barry


Couchman, James
Hickmet, Richard


Cranbome, Viscount
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hind, Kenneth


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hirst, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Holt, Richard


Dover, Den
Hooson, Tom


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hordern, Peter


Durant, Tony
Howard, Michael


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Eggar, Tim
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Emery, Sir Peter
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Evennett, David
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Fallon, Michael
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Favell, Anthony
Hunter, Andrew


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Fletcher, Alexander
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Fookes, Miss Janet
Jessel, Toby


Forman, Nigel
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Jones, Robert (W Herts)


Fox, Marcus
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Freeman, Roger
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Fry, Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom


Galley, Roy
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Knowles, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Knox, David


Gorst, John
Lamont, Norman


Gow, Ian
Lang, Ian


Grant, Sir Anthony
Latham, Michael


Greenway, Harry
Lawler, Geoffrey


Gregory, Conal
Lawrence, Ivan


Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edmds)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Grist, Ian
Lester, Jim


Ground, Patrick
Lightbown, David


Grylls, Michael
Lilley, Peter


Gummer, John Selwyn
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Lord, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Lyell, Nicholas


Hannam,John
McCrindle, Robert





McCurley, Mrs Anna
Pink, R. Bonner


Macfarlane, Neil
Pollock, Alexander


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Porter, Barry


Maclean, David John.
Powell, William (Corby)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Powley, John


McQuarrie, Albert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Malone, Gerald
Price, Sir David


Maples, John
Proctor, K. Harvey


Marlow, Antony
Raffan, Keith


Mather, Carol
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Maude, Hon Francis
Renton, Tim


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Rhodes James, Robert


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Mellor, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Merchant, Piers
Rifkind, Malcolm


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Roe, Mrs Marion


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Shersby, Michael


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Miscampbell, Norman
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Montgomery, Fergus
Stanbrook, Ivor


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Steen, Anthony


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Stokes, John


Mudd, David
Taylor, Rt Hon John David


Murphy, Christopher
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Neale, Gerrard
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Neubert, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Newton, Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Norris, Steven
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Onslow, Cranley
Walden, George


Oppenheim, Philip
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Osborn, Sir John
Ward, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Page, John (Harrow W)
Warren, Kenneth


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Watts, John


Parris, Matthew
Yeo, Tim


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Patten, John (Oxford)



Pattie, Geoffrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Pawsey, James
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. John Major.


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth



Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Question accordingly negatived.

Further consideration adjourned. — [Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Town and Country Planning Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION ETC, IN ANTICIPATION OF DISPOSAL OF CROWN LAND

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, leave out from beginning of line 4 to "but" in line 7 and insert—
(8) Any permission or consent granted before the date on which this section comes into force which would have been a valid planning permission, listed building consent or conservation area consent but for the fact that—

(a) the land in respect of which it was granted was Crown land; and
(b) no interest in the land was for the time being held otherwise than by or on behalf of the Crown.
shall be deemed to have been a valid planning permission, listed building consent or conservation area consent, as the case may be".

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
On Second Reading, doubts were expressed about the drafting of this important subsection. While we consider that the original drafting achieved the desired effect, we have felt it right to ask parliamentary counsel to redraft it so as to overcome any doubts that might still exist in the minds of some local planning authorities. The amendment has the same effect as the original subsection 1(8), but we hope that those who were concerned previously will find it easier to understand.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause

TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS IN ANTICIPATION OF DISPOSAL OF CROWN LAND

Lords amendment: No. 2, after clause 1, insert—
.(1) A local planning authority or, in Scotland, a planning authority may make a tree preservation order in respect of Crown land in which no interest is for the time being held otherwise than by or on behalf of the Crown if they consider it expedient to do so for the purpose of preserving trees or woodlands on the land in the event of its ceasing to be Crown land or becoming subject to a private interest.
(2) No tree preservation order shall be made by virtue of this section except with the consent of the appropriate authority.
(3) A tree preservation order made by virtue of this section shall not take effect until the land in question ceases to be Crown land or becomes subject to a private interest, whichever first occurs.
(4) A tree preservation order made by virtue of this section shall not require confirmation under section 60 of the Act of 1971 or section 58 of the Act of 1972 until after the occurrence of the event by virtue of which it takes effect in accordance with subsection (3) above; and any such order shall by virtue of this subsection continue in force until—

(a) the expiration of the period of six months beginning with the occurrence of that event; or
(b) the date on which the order is confirmed, whichever first occurs.
(5) On the occurrence of any event by virtue of which a tree preservation order takes effect in accordance with subsection (3) above the appropriate authority shall as soon as practicable give to the authority that made the order a notice in writing of the name and address of the person who has become entitled to the land in question or to a private interest in it; and the procedure prescribed under the provisions mentioned in subsection (4)

above in connection with the confirmation of the order shall apply as if the order had been made on the date on which that notice is received by the authority.
(6) In section 58(4) of the Act of 1972 after the words "section 59 of this Act" there shall be inserted the words "and section (Tree preservation orders in anticipation of disposal of Crown land) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1984".
(7) Any order made before the date on which this section comes into force which would have been a valid tree preservation order but for the fact that—

(a) the land in respect of which it was made was Crown land; and
(b) no interest in the land was for the time being held otherwise than by or on behalf of the Crown,
shall be deemed to have been a valid tree preservation order; but any order validated by this subsection shall have effect and be deemed always to have had effect) as provided in subsection (3) above.

Queen's Consent and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This new clause arises from valuable suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) on Second Reading to the effect that the provisions of the Bill should be extended to tree preservation orders. Many other hon. Members echoed the concern that my hon. Friend then expressed.
At present, tree preservation orders cannot be made in respect of Crown land in which there is no subsisting private interest. Where there is a private interest in the land, such as a lease, an order can be made with the consent of the Crown—a term which, in this context, includes Government Departments—but this will bind only the leaseholder and not the Crown. We do not consider that it is necessary to change the position in relation to the Crown itself. We believe that existing safeguards are adequate and that such a move would be both unnecessary and inappropriate.
However, there is a potential problem when Crown land on which trees are growing is sold or let. If the local planning authority concerned considers that the trees ought to be preserved, it can make a tree preservation order as soon as the land ceases to be Crown land or a private interest in it is created. But even the speedy procedure for making a provisional tree preservation order which the 1971 Act contains takes a few days. A tree can be cut down in a few minutes, so there is inevitably a period when the trees are at risk.
The new clause would enable a planning authority to make a tree preservation order in respect of Crown land in which there is no subsisting private interest. The order will not take effect until the land has been sold or a private interest in it, such as a lease, has been created. Even then, it will take effect only provisionally, and it will require to be confirmed within six months of the sale or creation of the private interest that brings it into effect. In this way, the short-term protection of the trees is ensured — the point which my hon. Friend made on Second Reading—but the new owner of the land will have the normal opportunity to have his views properly considered before the order takes permanent effect.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking note of what I said on this subject on Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2

CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT ON CROWN LAND

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 3, line 28, leave out from "condition" to end of line 29 and insert
before the development took place or for discontinuing any use of the land which has been instituted by the development.

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a purely drafting amendment, which is intended to achieve greater clarity in the provisions of subsection (4) of the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3

PERSONS IN OCCUPATION OF LAND BY VIRTUE OF A LICENCE OR CONTRACT

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 4, line 42, leave out "and 2
" and insert
, (Tree preservation orders in anticipation of disposal of Crown land) and 2

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
With this we may also discuss Lords Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 45, leave out "section 2" and insert
sections (Tree preservation orders in anticipation of disposal of Crown land) and 2
These amendments are consequential on the introduction of the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 5 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 5, line 7, leave out "granted by an instrument"

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is purely a drafting amendment to secure consistency with subsection (1) of the clause.

Clause 4

REQUIREMENT OF PLANNING PERMISSION FOR CONTINUANCE OF USE INSTITUTED BY THE CROWN

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 5, line 26, after "had" insert "required planning permission and"

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a minor drafting amendment which seeks merely to clarify the provisions of the subsection.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 5, line 28, at end insert—
( ) The condition referred to in subsection (2) above shall not be enforceable against any person who had a private interest in the land at the time when the agreement was made unless the local planning authority or planning authority by whom the agreement was made have notified him of the making of the agreement and of the effect of that subsection.

Mr. Macfarlane: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment meets an undertaking that I gave in Committee. The clause empowers the Crown to make an agreement with a local planning authority to ensure that a use of Crown land which results from development carried out by the Crown is discontinued when the Crown ceases to occupy the land. Subsections (3) and (4) already ensure that a purchaser from the Crown is made aware of the existence of such an agreement, but this does not necessarily bring it to the notice of a third party who already has an interest in the land. The amendment will make the arrangement unenforceable against such a person unless the planning authority has notified him that it has been made and of its effect. We consider that it is right that the necessary notice should be given by the authority—it is, after all, the body which benefits from the making of the agreement and therefore has the incentive to make sure that the necessary notice is given. We recognise that the authority is likely to need to rely on the Crown for information about the existence of any private interest, but we do not consider that this is likely to give rise to any difficulty.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

PUBLIC RECORDS

That the draft Public Records (British Railways Board) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 5th March, be approved—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Question agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Boscawen.]

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eleven o' clock.